Wildife Task force 90-10, etc.

[WIbiggame]

Doubt it will pass, they just shot down a different tag $ increase bill

after the committee snubbed the special fee increase? what are the odds this thing passes?

I understand this bill was never shot down it was just moved to the house because bills involving license increases and state revenue need to go through the house.

 

[SAJ-99]

I agree with you about wages not increasing, but that just isn't the point here the only tool being used is price. So if wages went up we would just be looking at a larger price increase.

If you make tags more expensive you are benefiting the rich over the middle class.

If you create point systems you are benefiting those in the system at inception over everyone else.

It's all just "I don't want to share" masquerading as some sort of logical fallacy.

Also just to clarify, I'm fine with raising prices for funding an agency, I take issue with the idea it's a good fix to point creep.

Very good point, but it highlights the conundrum. If the problem is too much demand for a finite product, I don't see any other clearing mechanism except price, other than maybe time (ie, point creep) but eventuate has a cost to it.

 

[BrentD]

Very good point, but it highlights the conundrum. If the problem is too much demand for a finite product, I don't see any other clearing mechanism except price, other than maybe time (ie, point creep) but eventuate has a cost to it.

There are other fixes, but you wouldn't like them. Such as applying for only one of anything, not one of everything. In one place, not every place. Or at least awarding only one (or n) tags per year across a much larger geography.

 

[Nick87]

There are other fixes, but you wouldn't like them. Such as applying for only one of anything, not one of everything. In one place, not every place. Or at least awarding only one (or n) tags per year across a much larger geography.

Sounds like a mess to coordinate probably not in game and fish agencies best financial interest either?

 

[D_Walt]

For all our bitching and whining, we are all living in the “good old days” of economic opportunity, hunting opportunity, relative peace and prosperity in our country, information abundance, freedom and ability to travel easier than ever before.

I bitch about tag prices and opportunities too, but damn, when demand exceeds supply by such a wide margin something has to give. Not a lot of guys in the “old days” rolling into camp with $80k pickups pulling $30k Rangers, wearing $3k worth of Sitka, $10k worth of optics and rifles bitching about how they had to spend an extra couple hundred bucks for the opportunity.

Costs are going up, opportunities are decreasing - but opportunities will not go to zero. That is the reality and it’s not changing. Best plan accordingly.

 

[SAJ-99]

There are other fixes, but you wouldn't like them. Such as applying for only one of anything, not one of everything. In one place, not every place. Or at least awarding only one (or n) tags per year across a much larger geography.

Agree, we aren't going to like any solutions. Yours are artificially constraining demand. It wouldn't take long for people to figure out how to play the system.

 

[BrentD]

Sounds like a mess to coordinate probably not in game and fish agencies best financial interest either?

It would be an absolute piece of cake to coordinate. As for best financial interest? Well, that is not supposed to be their priority, now is it?

If the world wanted it to happen, it would be a snap.

 

[BrentD]

Agree, we aren't going to like any solutions. Yours are artificially constraining demand. It wouldn't take long for people to figure out how to play the system.

EVERYTHING about hunting regulations/licenses/tags artificially constrains demand. If it did not, we would have unmanaged hunting and zero game animals. So, if that's an objection, let's toss it to the curb right now. There would be no "play the system" at all.

 

[BrentD]

EVERYTHING about hunting regulations/licenses/tags artificially constrains demand. If it did not, we would have unmanaged hunting and zero game animals. So, if that's an objection, let's toss it to the curb right now. There would be no "play the system" at all.

I take that back, there could be some "play", but does not have to be.

 

[rtraverdavis]

I think the reason why this is such an emotionally charged issue for so many is that Wyoming has long been the sort of "last great place" for hunting opportunity and quality in the Lower 48 for a while now. Think about it: when was the last time you heard that the hunting in Wyoming sucks? Seeing that opportunity change for the worse (for those that see Wyoming as an attainable promise-land for great hunting) is hard.

But the most salient thing that watching all the shit that came out of the Task Force over the past year has taught me, was the problem within my own thinking about out-of-state hunting. I've realized that I focused WAY more on finding quality out-of-state hunts than smaller local opportunities, and certainly WAY more than improving the hunting conditions and opportunities in my own state--because it was WAY easier. I wanted to hunt out of state because the hunting was better, rather than working to make the hunting within my own state better. Hitting the "Easy Button," as Buzz would say. But I see now that I and my kids and all the other hunters in all our respective states would be far better served in the long run if we flip that approach.

I still do plan to hunt in Wyoming again, mostly because there are places I'd like to explore with the extra exhilaration of having a tag in my pocket, but Oregon is home and it deserves better, and that is where the majority of my effort should lie.

 

[SAJ-99]

EVERYTHING about hunting regulations/licenses/tags artificially constrains demand. If it did not, we would have unmanaged hunting and zero game animals. So, if that's an objection, let's toss it to the curb right now. There would be no "play the system" at all.

Let me clarify, demand for tags is not allocation of tags. If a state says you can only apply for one big game species per year (WA has a rule that steps into this area, though not fully) then you have limited application demand. Someone who would have applied for deer, elk, antelope can now only apply for one of them, assuming I understand you correctly. Yes, it would change draw odds, making them "better", but to the individual hunter they now have fewer chances in the draw system. Three chances at 2% each or one chance at 6% is a simple way to think about it. To your point, they will complain.
Playing the system would happen regardless. That's what people do and there is an entire industry set up to look at the numbers. I love the idea of added complexity, and think it would interesting. However, it doesn't fix the belief that Average Joe is losing the opportunity to hunt. We would have to put numbers together to see how it might work.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Not a lot of guys in the “old days” rolling into camp with $80k pickups pulling $30k Rangers, wearing $3k worth of Sitka, $10k worth of optics and rifles bitching about how they had to spend an extra couple hundred bucks for the opportunity.

I mean that's the point though right?

There are probably... 1,640,000ish American's that make over 600k a year. If even 1% of those hunt WY could take 3 year to draw a general elk tag.

Meaning that you could probably make a tag $5000 and all it would do is keep the other 99% from ever hunting WY as a NR.

I think folks see how good they have it, or their buddies and just think that's everyone.

 

[BrentD]

I bitch about tag prices and opportunities too, but damn, when demand exceeds supply by such a wide margin something has to give. Not a lot of guys in the “old days” rolling into camp with $80k pickups pulling $30k Rangers, wearing $3k worth of Sitka, $10k worth of optics and rifles bitching about how they had to spend an extra couple hundred bucks for the opportunity.

Not a lot of guys in the "new days" do either. Look around a bit more.

 

[Bowhuntrben]

Wyoming has to do what is best for its residents.

I doubt this will really impact me personally, but the trend in western states does make me feel sad for my kids and other future generations.

I still see lots of opportunities out there, but I don't know how long that will last.

If my boys do grow to enjoy hunting, I may recommend they move to a western state if the Lord calls them there.

Until that time, I will have to be thinking about if I'm better off buying them a quality camera rather than a rifle. Many good experiences can be had without holding a hunting license.

It's just hard for me to accept this since hunting has been a huge part of my life.

 

[TOGIE]

Until that time, I will have to be thinking about if I'm better off buying them a quality camera rather than a rifle.

man, that weirdly resonates with me. i've been perusing quite a bit for a good beginner dslr.

being on the hunt for sick mountain landscape and nature photography will almost unarguably take you to cooler places than hunting ever will.

but also, i'm starting to want to try and focus on just taking sweet pictures while hunting.

 

[88man]

For all our bitching and whining, we are all living in the “good old days” of economic opportunity, hunting opportunity, relative peace and prosperity in our country, information abundance, freedom and ability to travel easier than ever before.

I bitch about tag prices and opportunities too, but damn, when demand exceeds supply by such a wide margin something has to give. Not a lot of guys in the “old days” rolling into camp with $80k pickups pulling $30k Rangers, wearing $3k worth of Sitka, $10k worth of optics and rifles bitching about how they had to spend an extra couple hundred bucks for the opportunity.

Costs are going up, opportunities are decreasing - but opportunities will not go to zero. That is the reality and it’s not changing. Best plan accordingly.

I agree with you. I do ask> why did demand increase?? I can't turn on youtube without video after video from all the INFLUENCERS apply, apply, here is how you apply here, here is all the research for you here, you can drive here, we make it easy for you here, apply apply, its easy, its all laid out for you here>>> OH we wear this clothing, AD AD AD, We use this service Ad Ad Ad, ask a friend to join.
Here is how you do it> Apply> we hunt here> Apply Apply> Here is how you do it on a budget> Just apply> WYOMING!!!! COLORADO!!!! MONTANA!! NEW MEXICO!!!!! IDAHO!!! apply!
All you gotta do is subscribe and apply then buy this clothing and software etc. > All your research right here in one spot> all you need to know> Apply

Then when everyone is applying and demand for tags is increasing every year> lets say " what do we need to do to keep hunting affordable"

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I agree with you. I do ask> why did demand increase?? I can't turn on youtube without video after video from all the INFLUENCERS apply, apply, here is how you apply here, here is all the research for you here, you can drive here, we make it easy for you here, apply apply, its easy, its all laid out for you here>>> OH we wear this clothing, AD AD AD, We use this service Ad Ad Ad, ask a friend to join.
Here is how you do it> Apply> we hunt here> Apply Apply> Here is how you do it on a budget> Just apply> WYOMING!!!! COLORADO!!!! MONTANA!! NEW MEXICO!!!!! IDAHO!!! apply!
All you gotta do is subscribe and apply then buy this clothing and software etc. > All your research right here in one spot> all you need to know> Apply

Then when everyone is applying and demand for tags is increasing every year> lets say " what do we need to do to keep hunting affordable"

I’d love to see the demographic data on Western hunting.

Boomers are a huge generation.
They did delay retirement and then all start to retire at once during the same time frame we are discussing.
They do have time + a lot of money, and are more likely to not care what it costs and they are more likely to have lots of points to cash in.

Would be interesting to see how much of the increases is 20 year old dudes versus 67.

Anecdotally, the only place I’ve seen a bunch of young guys is during elk archery. Spring bear in POW was like a cruise in Florida unloading the ferry.



If that is the case then in 5-10 years we will see pressure abate.

 

[D_Walt]

Not a lot of guys in the "new days" do either. Look around a bit more.

The places I hunt in Colorado are packed full of NR’s on vacation/hunts as described above. Ymmv

 

[BrentD]

I’d love to see the demographic data on Western hunting.

Boomers are a huge generation.
They did delay retirement and then all start to retire at once during the same time frame we are discussing.
They do have time + a lot of money, and are more likely to not care what it costs and they are more likely to have lots of points to cash in.

Would be interesting to see how much of the increases is 20 year old dudes versus 67.

Anecdotally, the only place I’ve seen a bunch of young guys is during elk archery. Spring bear in POW was like a cruise in Florida unloading the ferry.



If that is the case then in 5-10 years we will see pressure abate.

Will, you have some very odd ideas about "boomers" as you circular file them.

And your PoW spring bear observations was pretty close to 180 degrees from my one PoW spring bear experience.

What I see here on HT is also very different than your "boomer-blame" hypothesis. Have you looked in the mirror lately? Just sayin'.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Will, you have some very odd ideas about "boomers" as you circular file them.

And your PoW spring bear observations was pretty close to 180 degrees from my one PoW spring bear experience.

What I see here on HT is also very different than your "boomer-blame" hypothesis. Have you looked in the mirror lately? Just sayin'.

It’s not meant as a “blame” just reality.

NR hunting requires time and money.

20s not a lot of money
30-40 not a lot of time
50-70s time and money

Not necessarily the trend of resident hunters.

I bet the median age on HT is 55 and the mean is 60. Hell I’m one of the young guys here and I’m 35.