Wyo Task Force - Nonres Comments!

[Deleted member 40728]

I'm fine with all of that. Especially bowhunting.

My comments were total sarcasm but good for you.

 

[BWALKER77]

Challenge accepted.

I'm fine if WY wants to go to a more strict 90/10. That's up to the agency and residents to decide, but Non-residents should also be considered for their input, since they're the one's who will be most affected.

Yes, wildlife and the easy, cheap access to opportunity are the largess of the residents. They live in that state, pay the freight for schools, fire departments, etc. They deserve to be at the front of the line. That should be something we all can agree on. But, if we're going to continue a funding model that relies on Non-residents funding roughly 70% of our game agencies, then listening to those customers and taking their input in, and ensuring good customer satisfaction is also a critical part of this equation.

But all in all, what we're really talking about is the reduction in wildlife, and who gets to shoot what, when, where and in what numbers rather than how we build herds back, increase wildlife populations and improve habitat conditions while also managing the allocation of licenses.

Hunters tend to get wrapped around the axle of opportunity first, and the resource second. This thread really highlights that.

I think its a shame R license cost are a pittance. Both NR and R license costs need to at least double in the case of NR and quadruple in the case of R.

 

[BWALKER77]

That's right I'm doing my best to get the word out to as many nonres as I can possibly can across the US! I'm pretty sure it's working. At least nonres that enjoy hunting on their own won't be shocked if this comes up on the legislature. Hopefully enough nonres will voice their opinions that something will be done to stop it!

If you are a DIY hunter and enjoy hunting big game on your own you ought to be concerned with what's going on in Wyo. That's exactly what this website is about! Nonres opportunity for those that enjoy hunting on their own will be lost....big time if this passes!

There are a gob of nonres that live in the midwest and east that there only opportunity to hunt big game species such as antelope, deer, and elk is Wyo and other states in the West. OYO hunters are losing out big time with 90/10 in Wyo if this passes!

The east has plenty of hunting. Just not the species being hyped on social media.

 

[BWALKER77]

My comments were total sarcasm but good for you.

Mine wasnt.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think its a shame R license cost are a pittance. Both NR and R license costs need to at least double in the case of NR and quadruple in the case of R.

I think it's a shame that we expect hunters to fund all of state wildlife conservation rather than seek to bring others to the table to help share that burden. Hunters don't need to pay $100 for a resident elk tag. We need the other folks to pony up as well.

 

[BWALKER77]

This is one of my main concerns with the issue. Thanks for acknowledging the fact.

I am not very concerned with that at all. For starters there are large numbers of NR who want access lessened. There is also the fact that's its Residents that do the heavy lifting when these issues come up at the state level.

 

[BWALKER77]

I think it's a shame that we expect hunters to fund all of state wildlife conservation rather than seek to bring others to the table to help share that burden. Hunters don't need to pay $100 for a resident elk tag. We need the other folks to pony up as well.

Ben, I get your point. However, once we stop funding conservation almost in totality our voice is seriously diminished. Do you really want to give a seat at table to groups with anti hunting leanings, IE most environmental groups?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, I get your point. However, once we stop funding conservation almost in totality or voice is seriously diminished. Do you really want to give a seat at table to groups with anti hunting leanings, IE most environmental groups?

They already have a seat at the table. They're citizens for which the wildlife is held in trust. They, like outfitters, ranchers, farmers, floozles, whatsits and bamboozlers all have a legitimate stake in this game, but they're getting a free ride. I see what's happening in Colorado, and the response from some folks has been to prove the anti's right, while others have taken a more inclusive tone and seem to be moving that needle.

 

[BWALKER77]

They already have a seat at the table. They're citizens for which the wildlife is held in trust. They, like outfitters, ranchers, farmers, floozles, whatsits and bamboozlers all have a legitimate stake in this game, but they're getting a free ride. I see what's happening in Colorado, and the response from some folks has been to prove the anti's right, while others have taken a more inclusive tone and seem to be moving that needle.

He who has the gold rules.
In all seriousness if hunters were really serious about public lands, hunting, etc they would plow money into a honest to goodness lobbying effort Ala the NRA.

 

[Ben Lamb]

He who has the gold rules.
In all seriousness if hunters were really serious about public lands, hunting, etc they would plow money into a honest to goodness lobbying effort Ala the NRA.

And this attitude is why hunters will continue to diminish their own power whilst arguing over the smallest piece of the pie for the glory of killing the last critter.

Because F' those other guys.

 

[BWALKER77]

And this attitude is why hunters will continue to diminish their own power whilst arguing over the smallest piece of the pie for the glory of killing the last critter.

Because F' those other guys.

That's your opinion.
And yes, when it comes to groups with anti hunting leanings. EF EM.

 

[JLS]

They already have a seat at the table. They're citizens for which the wildlife is held in trust. They, like outfitters, ranchers, farmers, floozles, whatsits and bamboozlers all have a legitimate stake in this game, but they're getting a free ride. I see what's happening in Colorado, and the response from some folks has been to prove the anti's right, while others have taken a more inclusive tone and seem to be moving that needle.

This.

Sorry, anyone who thinks they have exclusive voice because they are naive enough to foot the entire bill is going to be sorely disappointed soon. There is a metric shit ton of money that is managing wildlife through the ballot box and kicking ass while doing so. How’s that working?

 

[rwc101]

 

[ccc23454]

Next buzz post will push count way up

 

[rwc101]

 

[Ben Lamb]

That's your opinion.
And yes, when it comes to groups with anti hunting leanings. EF EM.

This thread has proved that point. It's also easy to call some group "anti-hunting" rather than actually listen to what they're saying. I just had this argument with a guy who thinks we can pass minimum flow legislation becase F" ag.

When stakeholders work together for common cause, wildlife win. When we just sit around in our camps lobbing grenades, the bastards win.

 

[Shangobango]

Fantasy land aside that will never happen.

Maybe not, but fantasy land is thinking any rules are static and will never change IMO.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Maybe not, but fantasy land is thinking any rules are static and will never change IMO.

Feds took over management of migratory birds because the states messed it up.

Feds took over management of endangered species because of state failures.

Feds manage massive swaths of habitat & wildlife populations in parks, etc.

I mean, it's not that far fetched of an idea, and I've seen some reasonable people think it could happen. So, I'm kinda with Shango.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

That's your opinion.
And yes, when it comes to groups with anti hunting leanings. EF EM.

You have anti hunting leanings...anti bowhunting that is.

 

[Shangobango]

I doubt that, buddy. And how and why will there be less "public land advocates" created? In other words: How does it adversely affect the selling and publicizing of hunting to the target audience? You NR's will continue to pay the money and buy the gear and be on hunt talk all the time, etc no matter what your chances are of drawing a tag. Randy doesn't need to worry, he'll still have subscribers

Number one, I'm not your buddy.

Number two, what exactly are you doubting? That my main concern with decreasing hunting opportunities is decreasing numbers of hunters and advocates for the land and animals involved? Are you saying that my only concern is myself? If so, you don't know what the hell you are talking about but hey, you know what they say about opinions.

If you can't see how having a smaller pool of people hunting would create less advocates for hunting then there is an old saying about the forest and the trees you may want to look into.