Devaluing Non-Residents

[BuzzH]

Why do they continue to raise NR prices then? It's just a middle finger to people who are supporting the state and local businesses...

You're clueless as always. Think you know everything but reality is you don't know shit from clay.

You claim to be some expert on everything Wyoming because you have an uninformed opinion and can copy and paste an article.

Wyoming GF surplus is about 60 million, give or take about 8 months of operating costs. Funny you find that sum as a middle finger.

Here's how and why it happened in the first place.

While you were most likely attending 10th grade, learning it all, the Wyoming legislature hit a tough patch in the budget. The legislature stripped 100 percent of all general fund money that went to the GF. Meaning the department had a shortfall to overcome.

Most all the ngos, and a bunch of us Wyoming sportsmen you despise, took action. We lobbied for and pushed through legislation to increase fees for both R and NR fees, which we did. At the same time we made it possible for the GF to retain funds and carry them from year to year. With no more chance at any funding coming from general funds via state dollars, there had to be a way to keep the lights on at the GF.

Several years later there was direction from the Governor, asking all state agencies to cut their budgets. Even though the GF had enough money, 100% self funded, the director agreed to cut the GF budget. That voluntary cut created a big chunk of the surplus that the GF has. The legislature couldn't rob that money since the department had not taken any general fund money.

So, there it is. Its not a middle finger, it's smart business to operate in the black and have a rainy day fund. It's my contention that is not for the resident hunters showing up to make that happen, you'd be paying significantly more for your tags. With huge cuts in pronghorn and deer tags over the past decade, it's only because of the surplus we took care of during better times, that tags for both R and NRs aren't significantly more.

Further, because of that surplus Wyoming has the luxury to spend more money in understanding migration corridors, build under/over passed, pay for access, robust collaring, and a host of other things to keep wildlife on the landscape.

All of that doesn't happen because you apply for a tag, buy a $50 bonus point, and bitch on a hunting board about how all you get is a middle finger.

Honestly that's about all you deserve.

 

[BuzzH]

You are freaking ridiculous.

The 9 tags bothers you that much?

I'll have more this year.

 

[BuzzH]

Chill out - I was referring to those who suggest that is the right answer as a threat to those that question tag costs. The "be thankful you aren't paying market, if you did it would be $5,000" reaction is like "be glad you can drive your car on a city street, we could charge you $1,000". It suggests a straw alternative that violates any sense of proper government function and a move to flat out sale of wildlife.

As an aside, do you have a mode of interacting with others where you try to find a reading that doesn't boil your blood and cause a keyboard warrior lash out? It really is silly and all too predictable. We all get out over our skis sometimes, but for god's sake, not every single response needs to go to 11, make it personal and use hyperbole beyond any reason. It really does seriously undercut your otherwise earned credibility.

Is wildlife management over funded?

Would wildlife benefit from more money being thrown at it?

Is the cost to manage wildlife becoming more or less expensive?

Without increasing license fees, how do you propose we fund wildlife management?

Fact remains, the western states are leaving a metric chit ton of money on the table not charging anywhere close to market value. In other words, trying to keep hunting available to as many as possible and also keeping the lights on. You know, so that wildlife can continue to have a chance long term to survive.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Is wildlife management over funded?

Would wildlife benefit from more money being thrown at it?

Is the cost to manage wildlife becoming more or less expensive?

Without increasing license fees, how do you propose we fund wildlife management?

Fact remains, the western states are leaving a metric chit ton of money on the table not charging anywhere close to market value. In other words, trying to keep hunting available to as many as possible and also keeping the lights on.

Not at all responsive to issues I have raised, but thanks for playing.

 

[BuzzH]

Not at all responsive to issues I have raised, but thanks for playing.

Some of us feel like wildlife isn't just something to enjoy or care about while on vacation.

Thanks for "playing".

 

[rjthehunter]

You're clueless as always. Think you know everything but reality is you don't know shit from clay.

You claim to be some expert on everything Wyoming because you have an uninformed opinion and can copy and paste an article.

Wyoming GF surplus is about 60 million, give or take about 8 months of operating costs. Funny you find that sum as a middle finger.

Here's how and why it happened in the first place.

While you were most likely attending 10th grade, learning it all, the Wyoming legislature hit a tough patch in the budget. The legislature stripped 100 percent of all general fund money that went to the GF. Meaning the department had a shortfall to overcome.

Most all the ngos, and a bunch of us Wyoming sportsmen you despise, took action. We lobbied for and pushed through legislation to increase fees for both R and NR fees, which we did. At the same time we made it possible for the GF to retain funds and carry them from year to year. With no more chance at any funding coming from general funds via state dollars, there had to be a way to keep the lights on at the GF.

Several years later there was direction from the Governor, asking all state agencies to cut their budgets. Even though the GF had enough money, 100% self funded, the director agreed to cut the GF budget. That voluntary cut created a big chunk of the surplus that the GF has. The legislature couldn't rob that money since the department had not taken any general fund money.

So, there it is. Its not a middle finger, it's smart business to operate in the black and have a rainy day fund. It's my contention that is not for the resident hunters showing up to make that happen, you'd be paying significantly more for your tags. With huge cuts in pronghorn and deer tags over the past decade, it's only because of the surplus we took care of during better times, that tags for both R and NRs aren't significantly more.

Further, because of that surplus Wyoming has the luxury to spend more money in understanding migration corridors, build under/over passed, pay for access, robust collaring, and a host of other things to keep wildlife on the landscape.

All of that doesn't happen because you apply for a tag, buy a $50 bonus point, and bitch on a hunting board about how all you get is a middle finger.

Honestly that's about all you deserve.

Buzz. You're overthinking as always and spewing shit no one asked for. Re-read what I wrote. The constant price raises are a middle finger. Especially if there's a 60 million dollar surplus, and the residents scream "we don't need your money".

Continue to call me clueless, anything to make yourself feel better. Please, point out where I claimed to be an expert. Making observations doesn't constitute being an expert. You get heated wayyyy to easily.

 

[QuazyQuinton]

You're clueless as always. Think you know everything but reality is you don't know shit from clay.

You claim to be some expert on everything Wyoming because you have an uninformed opinion and can copy and paste an article.

Wyoming GF surplus is about 60 million, give or take about 8 months of operating costs. Funny you find that sum as a middle finger.

Here's how and why it happened in the first place.

While you were most likely attending 10th grade, learning it all, the Wyoming legislature hit a tough patch in the budget. The legislature stripped 100 percent of all general fund money that went to the GF. Meaning the department had a shortfall to overcome.

Most all the ngos, and a bunch of us Wyoming sportsmen you despise, took action. We lobbied for and pushed through legislation to increase fees for both R and NR fees, which we did. At the same time we made it possible for the GF to retain funds and carry them from year to year. With no more chance at any funding coming from general funds via state dollars, there had to be a way to keep the lights on at the GF.

Several years later there was direction from the Governor, asking all state agencies to cut their budgets. Even though the GF had enough money, 100% self funded, the director agreed to cut the GF budget. That voluntary cut created a big chunk of the surplus that the GF has. The legislature couldn't rob that money since the department had not taken any general fund money.

So, there it is. Its not a middle finger, it's smart business to operate in the black and have a rainy day fund. It's my contention that is not for the resident hunters showing up to make that happen, you'd be paying significantly more for your tags. With huge cuts in pronghorn and deer tags over the past decade, it's only because of the surplus we took care of during better times, that tags for both R and NRs aren't significantly more.

Further, because of that surplus Wyoming has the luxury to spend more money in understanding migration corridors, build under/over passed, pay for access, robust collaring, and a host of other things to keep wildlife on the landscape.

All of that doesn't happen because you apply for a tag, buy a $50 bonus point, and bitch on a hunting board about how all you get is a middle finger.

Honestly that's about all you deserve.

Pretty sure a good deal of the 60 million surplus you're so proud of comes from people like me buying $50 preference points.

QQ

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz. You're overthinking as always and spewing shit no one asked for. Re-read what I wrote. The constant price raises are a middle finger. Especially if there's a 60 million dollar surplus, and the residents scream "we don't need your money".

Continue to call me clueless, anything to make yourself feel better. Please, point out where I claimed to be an expert. Making observations doesn't constitute being an expert. You get heated wayyyy to easily.

The fact you claim license fees are "constantly being raised" shows how truly uninformed you are.

 

[BuzzH]

Pretty sure a good deal of the 60 million surplus you're so proud of comes from people like me buying $50 preference points.

QQ

I wouldn't call a half a tank of fuel a good deal, but yes, it's a small part. The very least that can be done to support the wildlife you care so much about.

Thanks for your support!

 

[VikingsGuy]

Some of us feel like wildlife isn't just something to enjoy or care about while on vacation.

Thanks for "playing".

Also in no way related to my posts. But often the case when someone catches your attention.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

One could say that NRs bitching about the cost of tags is a giant middle finger to all the wildlife we hunt.
RJ I literally will buy you a NR tag even tho you dont think that elk is worth the money i spent on it, id rather buy it for someone who appreciates the opportunity, but atleast the money is going towards the elk. This way you get an elk tag for free which is what it sounds like you think they should be and the mom and pop store u fill your gas tank up at 2x while there won't go out of business cause you weren't there.

 

[Mallardsx2]

The 9 tags bothers you that much?

I'll have more this year.

Thats awesome.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I truly cannot fathom the thought process behind starting this thread, and the subsequent commentary is proof that it wasn't for altruistic reasons. It's never too late to grow up OP, but it ain't looking good.

 

[SaskHunter]

Fellas, I'm just happy to be here.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Fellas, I'm just happy to be here.

That's an extra 4 bonus points & a tag

$1953 please.

 

[rjthehunter]

One could say that NRs bitching about the cost of tags is a giant middle finger to all the wildlife we hunt.
RJ I literally will buy you a NR tag even tho you dont think that elk is worth the money i spent on it, id rather buy it for someone who appreciates the opportunity, but atleast the money is going towards the elk. This way you get an elk tag for free which is what it sounds like you think they should be and the mom and pop store u fill your gas tank up at 2x while there won't go out of business cause you weren't there.

Wow, you've been taking lessons from buzz now huh? Funny how a year ago you messaged me saying how you didn't like him, now you're a fan.

I never said tags should be free, and I also never said I wouldn't buy a tag. But if you're offering, I'd gladly send you my Venmo and you can pay for my elk tag. I appreciate the opportunity to hunt, but at what point will you be priced out of NR hunting? Everyone has a limit right? I'm well off enough to ride increases out for years. It's not going to affect me any time soon. But I know plenty of people aren't in the same position I am and they might be getting a lot closer to their limits. If you want to turn it in to a rich mans sport, then do so. But that goes against the whole DIY public land hunting that many of us do.

 

[SaskHunter]

That's an extra 4 bonus points & a tag

$1953 please.

That's it, I'm pulling out of the NR HuntTalk game, it's become a rich man's game. I can get Facebook level drama for free.

 

[SAJ-99]

I truly cannot fathom the thought process behind starting this thread, and the subsequent commentary is proof that it wasn't for altruistic reasons. It's never too late to grow up OP, but it ain't looking good.

Wait until WY suggests moving to 90/10 for elk. That is going to be a really fun thread to watch.

 

[BuzzH]

Wow, you've been taking lessons from buzz now huh? Funny how a year ago you messaged me saying how you didn't like him, now you're a fan.

I never said tags should be free, and I also never said I wouldn't buy a tag. But if you're offering, I'd gladly send you my Venmo and you can pay for my elk tag. I appreciate the opportunity to hunt, but at what point will you be priced out of NR hunting? Everyone has a limit right? I'm well off enough to ride increases out for years. It's not going to affect me any time soon. But I know plenty of people aren't in the same position I am and they might be getting a lot closer to their limits. If you want to turn it in to a rich mans sport, then do so. But that goes against the whole DIY public land hunting that many of us do.

Non Residents have only been paying more for their tags since about 1930.

It's just in the past few years that the high-pitched whining about it has reached defcon 10.

Typical of the johnie-come-lately do-nothings but complain camp.

 

[Mtn-time]

The ebb & flow of the allocation to NR's isn't going to change, and while I'm in agreement that the flow of NR opportunity has over-reached in many states, the drastic over-reaction is what is going to cause a massive issue in terms of splitting a powerful, if small, group of stakeholders.

And that is 100% about the resource first. Non-residents are a massive subsidy to resident hunters. To think that doesn't benefit the public trust in multiple ways ignores reality, just as the push tp punish NR's bears little reality in terms of being something that is feasable in most western states.*



























*UT, CO, NM, WA, OR, CA excluded. No offer if void where prohibited.

I dont see it as NR subsidizing resident hunters. Much of those NR dollars are used to fund the BM program which in turn provided NR additional access/opportunity to private property. This also cleaned up a lot of problems caused by a very small minority. NR had a very bad rep, but also had money. Residents/locals already had access or hunting privilages on the said properties soon to enrolled into BM. Back when folks used to knock on doors instead of pulling up Apps. This was more about promoting MT and bringing in those out of state dollars to the State of Montana than it was about subsidizing resident hunters or FWP. It was a money grab for the state economy. It can be pinned on the Administration at the time and the subsequent Administrations since. It is not as significant to our economy today as it was when it originated. When the landowners had sole management of their property both quantity and quality were better. Now that the state is indirectly managing hunting on those properties it has eroded. So yeah, we all get to pay more for less. Modify the BM program to become less dependent on those NR dollars. I foresee it dying a slow death as more properties are leased up under better management. I'd like to see us investing more into habitat and access to public land.