Task force $1,950 NR elk tag

[Deleted member 28227]

A contrarian opinion (from a nonresident who is admittedly unfazed by this modest increase):

1) nonstop griping for years about point creep being absolutely unstoppable and how evil point systems are and how we should just burn the system down…when an obvious solution exists
2) a capitalist proposal surfaces in a popular western state to address the issue (ie, jack up rates to meet demand…does anyone think these won’t sell out, and once they do, that other states won’t realize that the market value of a bull elk tag is closer to $2k than $1k?)
3) cue weeping and gnashing of teeth from people who can’t afford it…

Nonresident hunting like mad had its moment. Promoters (Rinella, Newberg, GoHunt, Huntin Fool, etc) made plenty of $ hawking the adventure and accessibility.

A simple scenario: white collar working dude in East or Midwest who makes $150k (that’s not rich in an urban environment)…burns 7 days vacation to come west. Granted he’s still getting paid but the economic value of his time is just over $4k…that’s just what his time is worth. Gas = $1k, hotels/meals = $1k, tag = $1k. He’s at $7k. Would a 14% increase in his trip (tag price going from $1k to $2k) really affect him? Nope. Would it actually be nice because it increases his chances of getting a tag each year by pricing out the blue collars? Yup. Is it long term bad because it decreases ‘advocacy’? Arguably…I’ve been calling bullshit on R3 for ages. It’s mostly there to sell more overpriced gear. 90+% of people are just there to kill. They’re not advocates.

I wish states would start charging $10k down just to apply for a sheep tag. Keep out the riffraff. Let the market drive the bus. If you want a seat, get some cash together. That’s where it is going folks. Some of us can afford it. In a world of diminishing opportunities, getting used to disappointment is a healthy skill to develop.

In the long term this proposal probably benefits me, if I’m being honest my hunting budget in 2030 is probably going to be “whatever I want.”

That said, I would love to see prices dropped, though also with @BuzzH on some of his historical comments doe/cow tags shouldn’t be discounted.

I think straight lotteries, and tamping down the buying of inches of antler is a net positive for critters and our society.

Look there’s always Texas if you just want to slap a bar code on a bulls ass.

 

[noharleyyet]

In the long term this proposal probably benefits me, if I’m being honest my hunting budget in 2030 is probably going to be “whatever I want.”

That said, I would love to see prices dropped, though also with @BuzzH on some of his historical comments doe/cow tags shouldn’t be discounted.

I think straight lotteries, and tamping down the buying of inches of antler is a net positive for critters and our society.

Look there’s always Texas if you just want to slap a bar code on a bulls ass.

...running out of shit to say when you drag Mother Texas into that shitshow.

 

[Ben Lamb]

slap a bar code on a bulls ass.

Somebody's been to Gilley's.

 

[rogerthat]

In the long term this proposal probably benefits me, if I’m being honest my hunting budget in 2030 is probably going to be “whatever I want.”

We get it! Your kind of a big deal around here. People know you!

 

[Deleted member 28227]

We get it! Your kind of a big deal around here. People know you!

150k more likes and I’m usurping Cam on the res bull gravy train.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

150k more likes and I’m usurping Cam on the res/mormon/hill ranch bull gravy train.

Slight edit above. I think it'll take more likes than that though. I'm not sure Big Fin would appreciate the bots necessary to climb to those heights.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I missed it - is there a proposed price change to the regular tag price to coincide with the special increase?

And if there is a recommended way to leave comments, where would one go about that?

 

[Big Fin]

Catching up after most of a month on the road. This proposal is painful to hear about. It was probably 10 years ago when they tried to flip the Regular/Special ratio from 60/40 to 40/60. I commented against that. Someone on the Legislative Committee passed my comments to Sy and his pals. They contacted RMEF, as I was one of 20 Board Members at the time. RMEF ignored them, as did I. But, it shows you how incestuous the legislator/outfitter association relationships can be in some of these western states.

Since then, if Sy and his pals are for it, my default position is that I'm against it.

If this passes, and I think it will, it will hurt non-residents and it will hurt residents. Sy's clients will get better draw odds, the risk of leasing will go down, and they will lease up more land with the lower risk business environment. When more land gets leased, it is the resident who gets displaced, not the non-resident. I've lived that story in Montana and that is how it's gonna end in Wyoming.

I've had my days of fun in Wyoming. If I never draw again, I've been provided more than my share of hunts there. I am worried about those who haven't had the chances I have. What will connect them to these special landscapes and the value these places hold? For me, nothing can connect me to a landscape like hunting connects me. I can say with certainty that if not for my hunts on many amazing landscapes, my concern and priority of those landscapes would be less. With this change, economics is going to alter the scenario for many people who would benefit from experiences like I've had, often times with family and friends.

At this point in my life, the odds of Wyoming pricing me out is very unlikely. Given my perspective on hunting while I can, the price point that would get me to stop is above what would price out the non-resident clients of Sy and Pals. Just a function of age that creates a different financial situation than when I was trying to build businesses, pay off mortgages and rental properties, and had obligations yet to fund. And the fact that I'm likely on a short rope when it comes to the number of hunts in my future. If I invest all my money on hunting, it will be a good investment. Twenty-five years ago I could not have justified the level of foolishness that is my hunting budget. And it was during that frugal period of my life where the treasured hunting experiences of me, family, and friends, built my connection to wild places and wild things that are now my passion in life.

Not that Wyoming gives two chits what I'd like to see, but if they are going to change things I would like to see 80/20 be the allocations between Regular/Special, with a split of 50/50 between the random/preference point. And I would keep the Regular Tag price the same and jack up the Special Tag prices so high that many of Sy's clients would bail on Wyoming.

A sad deal. I suspect the fee increase is a done deal and will pass the Legislature. I normally don't comment on what other states do between resident/nonresident allocation - their state, their wildlife, their decision; I'll deal with what they decide. Once the non-resident allocation is made, how that NR allocation gets split in Wyoming is something I will be commenting on. When I do, I suspect someone will slip my comments to Sy and pals, then he will send me another snide email like he did when we fought SB 143 in 2021, a Montana bill that would have put 40% of the NR MT tags in an outfitter pool.

Hopefully this Task Force can go hunting for a few months and quit manufacturing problems that don't need a solution.

 

[WoodMoose]

hunting antelope for one day before pulling the trigger on a 12" buck.

hey now,,,,,

 

[BuzzH]

Catching up after most of a month on the road. This proposal is painful to hear about. It was probably 10 years ago when they tried to flip the Regular/Special ratio from 60/40 to 40/60. I commented against that. Someone on the Legislative Committee passed my comments to Sy and his pals. They contacted RMEF, as I was one of 20 Board Members at the time. RMEF ignored them, as did I. But, it shows you how incestuous the legislator/outfitter association relationships can be in some of these western states.

Since then, if Sy and his pals are for it, my default position is that I'm against it.

If this passes, and I think it will, it will hurt non-residents and it will hurt residents. Sy's clients will get better draw odds, the risk of leasing will go down, and they will lease up more land with the lower risk business environment. When more land gets leased, it is the resident who gets displaced, not the non-resident. I've lived that story in Montana and that is how it's gonna end in Wyoming.

I've had my days of fun in Wyoming. If I never draw again, I've been provided more than my share of hunts there. I am worried about those who haven't had the chances I have. What will connect them to these special landscapes and the value these places hold? For me, nothing can connect me to a landscape like hunting connects me. I can say with certainty that if not for my hunts on many amazing landscapes, my concern and priority of those landscapes would be less. With this change, economics is going to alter the scenario for many people who would benefit from experiences like I've had, often times with family and friends.

At this point in my life, the odds of Wyoming pricing me out is very unlikely. Given my perspective on hunting while I can, the price point that would get me to stop is above what would price out the non-resident clients of Sy and Pals. Just a function of age that creates a different financial situation than when I was trying to build businesses, pay off mortgages and rental properties, and had obligations yet to fund. And the fact that I'm likely on a short rope when it comes to the number of hunts in my future. If I invest all my money on hunting, it will be a good investment. Twenty-five years ago I could not have justified the level of foolishness that is my hunting budget. And it was during that frugal period of my life where the treasured hunting experiences of me, family, and friends, built my connection to wild places and wild things that are now my passion in life.

Not that Wyoming gives two chits what I'd like to see, but if they are going to change things I would like to see 80/20 be the allocations between Regular/Special, with a split of 50/50 between the random/preference point. And I would keep the Regular Tag price the same and jack up the Special Tag prices so high that many of Sy's clients would bail on Wyoming.

A sad deal. I suspect the fee increase is a done deal and will pass the Legislature. I normally don't comment on what other states do between resident/nonresident allocation - their state, their wildlife, their decision; I'll deal with what they decide. Once the non-resident allocation is made, how that NR allocation gets split in Wyoming is something I will be commenting on. When I do, I suspect someone will slip my comments to Sy and pals, then he will send me another snide email like he did when we fought SB 143 in 2021, a Montana bill that would have put 40% of the NR MT tags in an outfitter pool.

Hopefully this Task Force can go hunting for a few months and quit manufacturing problems that don't need a solution.

One of the problems is that about half the task force don't even hunt. The other half maybe 2 are serious about it.

A bunch of them either depend on the money raised from wildlife or profit from exploiting wildlife directly or have family that does.

Think that leads to good decisions?

 

[Lyfter1013]

One of the problems is that about half the task force don't even hunt. The other half maybe 2 are serious about it.

A bunch of them either depend on the money raised from wildlife or profit from exploiting wildlife directly or have family that does.

Think that leads to good decisions?

I’m sure I’m Not going to like the answer but have to ask. How were the Members of the task Force actually picked/determined?

 

[Steve O]

One of the problems is that about half the task force don't even hunt. The other half maybe 2 are serious about it.

A bunch of them either depend on the money raised from wildlife or profit from exploiting wildlife directly or have family that does.

Think that leads to good decisions?

Weren’t you on the task force? I could have sworn there was some actual WY hunter representation in the first meetings.

 

[huntin24/7]

I kinda feel like with the big decisions made by wildlife task forces that can have huge effects on wildlife resources among other consequences that these members should be voted in by the public instead of appointed by those that may not have the best interest in mind for that wildlife or the general public.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I kinda feel like with the big decisions made by wildlife task forces that can have huge effects on wildlife resources among other consequences that these members should be voted in by the public instead of appointed by those that may not have the best interest in mind for that wildlife or the general public.

(A) administratively impractical
(B) in theory the democratic part of this process is the legislature
(C) I wouldn’t assume the broad mass of the general public would be anymore knowledgeable about wildlife management or the proper role of the NR hunter than the committee.

 

[huntin24/7]

(A) administratively impractical
(B) in theory the democratic part of this process is the legislature
(C) I wouldn’t assume the broad mass of the general public would be anymore knowledgeable about wildlife management or the proper role of the NR hunter than the committee.

I’m not saying the general public would be more knowledgeable, but they might have some say in who is voted in. And yes, I understand it’s probably not practical, but western state wildlife task forces seem to mostly be a shit sandwich, so I doubt it could be much worse. I don’t know everything though, so there’s that.

 

[idelkslayer]

I would rather not see this change occur but I didn't take the time to comment so my opinion doesn't really matter. Shame on me.

That said, in general I do not like the large cost differential between residents and non-residents very much. I wouldn't mind if the cost of the tags and licenses were the same for R and NR as long as the allocation remains heavily in favor of residents. Does an elk increase in value the farther you have to drive to kill it? I mean, if a resident is only willing to pay $30 dollars (at least they complain about any fee increase) for a tag that a NR is willing to pay $1000 for, what is the real value of that tag? I realize that would mean even worse drawing odds since cost would be less of a factor and I don't like that either. I haven't really found a way to reconcile my contrary opinions.

If cost are levelled then hunters wait their turn by applying in a point system. However, over time, point creep and continuously rising demand make these systems less "fair" as these systems change over time. Hunters that got in early might draw a tag 10 times in their life that the next generation would only be able to draw 3 times in a lifetime of hunting.

If cost is to be used as a way to regulate who can and can't hunt, then the line becomes those who can "wait their turn" by saving up for the tag every few years. Of course, this option means that some people can always stay at the front of the line while others can only afford it every few years.

I'm not sure that a purely capitalist system should apply to distribution of a publicly shared resource. The most capitalist solution would be for every tag to be auctioned and eliminate the draw entirely. I think most would not like that option for obvious reasons.

[Begin sarcasm] I think the best solution is for a new type of social media hunter to emerge that popularizes hunting for eastern whitetails, squirrels, hogs, and whatever else the east has to offer. For this to work there will need to be new gear and supplements and work-out routines, slow-motion video of hunters tying their boots with cornstalks in the background, not to mention a lot of new hashtags. [End sarcasm]

 

[zpooch]

150k more likes and I’m usurping Cam on the res bull gravy train.

Must be nice

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

$1,950 to have an opportunity to bag myself a Wyoming CWD elk? Would they allow drive hunts on the feed ground for these NR tags? If WY needs more revenue, they could always tax recreational weed

 

[BuzzH]

(A) administratively impractical
(B) in theory the democratic part of this process is the legislature
(C) I wouldn’t assume the broad mass of the general public would be anymore knowledgeable about wildlife management or the proper role of the NR hunter than the committee.

Agreed. What's so frustrating is I know a lot of good people that actually would have done a good job that were denied.

I also believe it was incredibly biased and inappropriate to put the GF director and an active GF commissioner on that task force.

Combine that with 6-7 of those selected with ties to outfitters...it was a predetermined outcome.

What's even more inappropriate is how a couple of the task force members bullied and harassed some people that made public comments. Even when the behavior was pointed out to the task force, and governors office, some of it recorded, nothing changed.

Also ridiculous that Sy sent emails and a blog post to NR clients to support the set asides. The job of the task force was, allegedly, to represent resident interests and to improve opportunity. Instead Sy and Lee Livingston were there to support their business.

Just not a good scene and imo, sportsmen shouldn't have to waste our time cleaning up and stopping the bullshit ideas that came from that task force.

There were no side boards and was literally a free-for-all of personal agendas.

If I ever see another wildlife task force in wyoming again it will be too soon.

 

[TN_Rifle_Junkie]

Shame they went after everything they could get. I did a lot of reading on the "Task Force" and it seems to me it was just a huge political stunt to force a lot of Outfitter set asides in WY. At least one member (a Senator) pretty much told them certain things they wanted were DOA and should not be pursued. Looks like the Outfitters will be getting theirs for the next few years in WY just like in MT.

Looking out for your best interests is natural, but at the cost of resident hunters seems a bit... Assinine. Yes, I get that Sy and Lee are getting their money from NR (mostly), but to screw everyone else to line your pockets may leave a sour taste in peoples mouth for outfitters in the future.

Same thing as MT. I wouldn't use a MT outfitter ever again after the stunt they pulled last year. I guess WY is on that list too in the near future.