JM77
Well-known member
@BuzzH @SnowyMountaineer and I will try to keep this group up on comment periods. It's close, but not over yet.
Wildife Task force 90-10, etc.
- Thread starter BuzzH
- Start date
RobertD
Well-known member
I think this represents a good example of lobbying for short term benefit at long term expense. I really believe that such an "all-in" move from a power player like this outfitters association helps them capitalize on what's basically a bubble, but the demand destruction they're going to create will make what they're doing less profitable over time than it otherwise would've been.
I think they're buying high and this is the first major sign of the bubble popping. I guess in ten or twenty years we'll see.
I think they're buying high and this is the first major sign of the bubble popping. I guess in ten or twenty years we'll see.
He’s not wrong.
This pretty much nails it.
It seems like there are a ton of tweaks Wyoming could make to residents that actually might make a difference; waiting periods, limiting the number of species that can be applied for in a year, moving some deer tags to a draw, moving cow/doe tags away from a separate or extra draw; but darn it sure would be bad if someone didn’t have the ability to shoot a pile of elk, deer and pronghorn every year
Landowner tags and transferable private land tags are coming. You heard it here first. People will be bought. Some people would sell their sister to the whore house if they could get a little something that benefits them. That’s become quite clear.
Sometimes the truth hurts a little. At least you and Buzz can say you had a hand in the sinking of the ship.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
There is demand for outfitted NR WY hunts, and demand for NR DIY hunts. The move of WY outfitters is to capture the outfitter demand and funnel money to themselves by ensuring tags don’t get into the hands of DIY NR hunters, at the expense of non-outfitter WY business owners. DIY hunters patronize local businesses differently, and that revenue goes away when DIY hunters go away.
Outfitters are increasingly irrelevant in the age of OnX. In order to maintain their existence, they lean towards implementing a fascist economic model. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
There is no “compromise” needed b/w expanding resident opportunity and the outfitter lobby. Let’s say in WY there are 125,000 resident sportspersons and 100 outfitters. If residents got 90/10 DEA, outfitters lose potential clients with a smaller NR tag pool. There are what, less than 100 out of 125,000 resident sportspersons telling the outfitters to go kick rocks?
I’m w/ @Greenhorn on this one - this is going to bite residents in the ass someday if this goes through.
I hope to never see that happen. That has nothing to do if I never draw another WY tag; I’m 100% on board with 90/10.
BrentD
Well-known member
It is. Has been for a while, but this is another big jump. When it becomes a rich man's game and only in a limited way at that, then public support for hunting on public land will decline. Expect that to show up soonest and strongest on federal public. Why would anyone support hunting on land they pay taxes to support but are not allowed to have a reasonable chance of hunting?
And then there are the Game and Fish budgets that are largely carried by NR tags and the points pyramid scheme. They are going to implode - not this year or next, but sooner than later.
What would that smaller NR pool in exchange for more resident tags do to state revenue?
You essentially have three losers in this scenario (the three with the most $), and only one winner (the one that contributes the least amount of $). Things like that very rarely happen without concessions.
It’s my understanding initially it wouldn’t have affected it because the lost LE tags were shifted to general.
@rtraverdavis sent me some email addresses earlier. I’ll be sending in comments when appropriate. I don’t expect the rank and file resident WY hunter to care about this at all. They’ll see it as reduced competition and expanded opportunity.
Maybe I owe Hunt Warz an apology. Maybe wildlife really is fodder for economic gain and I’m living in a philosophical past.
Maybe I owe Hunt Warz an apology. Maybe wildlife really is fodder for economic gain and I’m living in a philosophical past.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
In my observation, WY resident sportspersons have consistently demonstrated a willingness to step up and fund their own conservation and outdoor recreation activities, whether that is increased tag fees, conservation stamp fees, volunteer work, etc. I know that is a very broad brush, but perhaps less of a revenue gap than perceived.
I'm not inclined to blame Wyoming residents for this action by WYOGA. Unless I missed it, I didn't see a single Wyoming DIY hunter asking for this new WYOGA subsidy program. I saw them asking for something similar to what other states have - 90/10. I suspect most of us would be in favor of 90/10 if we were residents of Wyoming.
To blame Wyoming residents is akin to blaming Montana residents when MOGA pushed for 40% of the non-resident allocation in the 2021 legislative session. We didn't ask for that bill that would have screwed non-resident DIY hunters in a big way. As hard as residents fought that MOGA subsidy on behalf of non-residents, we still ended up with some BS preference point favors to outfitters on the last day of the legislative session. I wouldn't blame that on MT residents.
I do agree with @Greenhorn's conclusion of the eventual negative impacts to DIY hunters. Once the subsidy gets in place, it will be used to monetize the Wyoming outfitter system to a much higher degree, causing a lot of negative long-term impacts even to resident DIY hunters. With more certainty in tags for their clients, expect a huge increases in leasing, which impacts residents more than non-residents. History shows it will increase the lobbying clout WYOGA has, as they now have control over a huge chunk of the non-resident hunting revenue stream and they will use that as revenue stream ownership as leverage for most every wildlife issue that comes before the legislature and TF committees.
As a non-resident, I can see an end to my days of hunting in Wyoming if this comes to fruition. Given the Wyoming legislature and some of the TF members have made it clear that they don't want to hear from non-residents, I'm trying to plot the ways that non-residents can exercise influence in the process. Given the past history of Wyoming legislators passing along my comments to WYOGA members as a tool for attack, my trust in the integrity of the Wyoming processes is on par with my trust in the Montana processes; very low.
I'd caution against blaming WY resident hunters for the efforts of WYOGA to privatize the revenue stream attached to non-resident tag allocations. Those residents are likely our only tool of leverage against the WYOGA subsidy proposals.
WYOGA is asking that a public asset, hunting and tag allocation, be diverted to them in the largest manner they think can pass. This wildlife and hunting opportunity is an asset built by in large part by residents, with non-residents contributing a lot through funding, advocacy, volunteerism, with both residents and non-residents contributing in a very disproportionate manner when compared to the pittance that WYOGA has contributed to this wildlife asset.
This WYOGA privatization effort is a common political tact used by many business associations in many other parts of our economy and government. Western state legislatures previously had the gall to stand up to these outfitter association attempts at privatizing public wildlife and the opportunity around that wildlife. Unfortunately, the last 20 years has shown those western legislatures to be more panderers and lacking spine. And as citizens, we share our portion of collective responsibility for not being engaged to the levels these situations call for, and not just in Wyoming.
To blame Wyoming residents is akin to blaming Montana residents when MOGA pushed for 40% of the non-resident allocation in the 2021 legislative session. We didn't ask for that bill that would have screwed non-resident DIY hunters in a big way. As hard as residents fought that MOGA subsidy on behalf of non-residents, we still ended up with some BS preference point favors to outfitters on the last day of the legislative session. I wouldn't blame that on MT residents.
I do agree with @Greenhorn's conclusion of the eventual negative impacts to DIY hunters. Once the subsidy gets in place, it will be used to monetize the Wyoming outfitter system to a much higher degree, causing a lot of negative long-term impacts even to resident DIY hunters. With more certainty in tags for their clients, expect a huge increases in leasing, which impacts residents more than non-residents. History shows it will increase the lobbying clout WYOGA has, as they now have control over a huge chunk of the non-resident hunting revenue stream and they will use that as revenue stream ownership as leverage for most every wildlife issue that comes before the legislature and TF committees.
As a non-resident, I can see an end to my days of hunting in Wyoming if this comes to fruition. Given the Wyoming legislature and some of the TF members have made it clear that they don't want to hear from non-residents, I'm trying to plot the ways that non-residents can exercise influence in the process. Given the past history of Wyoming legislators passing along my comments to WYOGA members as a tool for attack, my trust in the integrity of the Wyoming processes is on par with my trust in the Montana processes; very low.
I'd caution against blaming WY resident hunters for the efforts of WYOGA to privatize the revenue stream attached to non-resident tag allocations. Those residents are likely our only tool of leverage against the WYOGA subsidy proposals.
WYOGA is asking that a public asset, hunting and tag allocation, be diverted to them in the largest manner they think can pass. This wildlife and hunting opportunity is an asset built by in large part by residents, with non-residents contributing a lot through funding, advocacy, volunteerism, with both residents and non-residents contributing in a very disproportionate manner when compared to the pittance that WYOGA has contributed to this wildlife asset.
This WYOGA privatization effort is a common political tact used by many business associations in many other parts of our economy and government. Western state legislatures previously had the gall to stand up to these outfitter association attempts at privatizing public wildlife and the opportunity around that wildlife. Unfortunately, the last 20 years has shown those western legislatures to be more panderers and lacking spine. And as citizens, we share our portion of collective responsibility for not being engaged to the levels these situations call for, and not just in Wyoming.
Going way back to the beginning of this thread, this sentence jumps out. It’s appears that WYOGA was playing the long game here, exchanging their support for a prize to be named later.
It seems that we now know what that prize was.
Last edited:
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,918
I’m not blaming Wyoming residents. I think a good portion of them know how good they have it. Hence why all the nonresident demand. This is just another slip down the sloppy slope. Lots of blame to spread around. Doesn’t make it suck any less. The trends are clear across the west. More money for less opportunity chased by more population. That’s the reality and I don’t see much changing that.
I would say the start of the demise of western hunting was putting information on tv shows and the internet. Bringing more people to the table was supposed to be a good thing. Have we seen anything improve with more people at the table? I certainly have seen the opposite. The trend will continue, and I certainly don’t blame Wyoming residents.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Doesn’t sound like its gonna squeeze out non residents as much as it will change the demographic of the type of non resident hunters coming for a “high demand” license/hunt. Makes sense - more dollars to Wyoming probably.
I wouldn’t blame residents for wanting 90-10.
Will always be some bread crumbs for the peasants. Good stuff is for those who will pay to get to the front of the line. Making deals with the devil will come around though.
Similar threads
