Wyo Wildlife Task Force and the new outfitter/landowner draw proposal

[Treeshark]

From a purely economic perspective, transferable landowner tags may benefit the local economy the most. Best of both worlds, the DIY-type local spending and financially benefits WY landowners (and state, spending on how its structured) as well.

 

[TOGIE]

I agree that bars, restaurants, hotels get more on average from a DIY guy than a guided guy. But it's not like the gas, groceries, drinks, etc that a hunter has from his outfitter all showed up from out of state.

I'd prefer the numbers between DIY and Outfitted were a wash or favored the DIY guy but I can't be intellectually honest and still think that overall $ brought into and kept in state per hunter are that close.

yeah the outfitters certainly are buying goods in wyoming for their clients, probably all of the goods they provide. but are they ordering their tents off cabelas.com? probably. really they probably have pro deals for all their nice equipment and they order it online.

how many of them have wholesale accounts with food suppliers that are based in some business center on the east coast or the midwest? how many of them get their bulk food at wal mart and costco?

i highly doubt the Brush Creek Ranch is getting the bulk of their food supply for guests and clients from Valley Foods.

the outfitters think they're the only thing benefitting wyoming financially. that they are THE small business, the only one that matters as far as hunting goes.

but i like your comment, we do need to strive for intellectual honesty around this. but frankly the folks wanting outfitter set asides should be the first ones to have to show intellectual honesty.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

We're on here arguing about grocery money and they're sitting in a back room deciding who to bribe or strong arm to get what they want.
What we should be doing is unifying a strategy moving forward and working on dividing the guide crowd against each other. But there's too many competing interests in the DIY crowd so we go back to who buys more hot dogs and TP and who drinks the most beer.

 

[TOGIE]

We're on here arguing about grocery money and they're sitting in a back room deciding who to bribe or strong arm to get what they want.
What we should be doing is unifying a strategy moving forward and working on dividing the guide crowd against each other. But there's too many competing interests in the DIY crowd so we go back to who buys more hot dogs and TP and who drinks the most beer.

i don't think the DIY crowd is really divided. we're overwhelmingly unified in being against outfitter set asides, the TF comments reflect that.

and obviously @JLS drinks the most beer.

duh.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

yeah the outfitters certainly are buying goods in wyoming for their clients, probably all of the goods they provide. but are they ordering their tents off cabelas.com? probably. really they probably have pro deals for all their nice equipment and they order it online.

how many of them have wholesale accounts with food suppliers that are based in some business center on the east coast or the midwest? how many of them get their bulk food at wal mart and costco?

i highly doubt the Brush Creek Ranch is getting the bulk of their food supply for guests and clients from Valley Foods.

the outfitters think they're the only thing benefitting wyoming financially. that they are THE small business, the only one that matters as far as hunting goes.

but i like your comment, we do need to strive for intellectual honesty around this. but frankly the folks wanting outfitter set asides should be the first ones to have to show intellectual honesty.

It seems we agree on much.

My main point is that IMO making hunting something that requires increasingly more $ is a bad thing. I don't see DIY hunters wanting to price out other DIY hunters for their own opportunity being better than outfitted hunters wanting to buy their way to more opportunity especially if DIY hunters justify increased prices as capitalizing on or maximizing the high demand for opportunity. Also not arguing against animals generating a fair value to cover their management but some of the comments have gone beyond that.

 

[Rhcuam]

If raising DEA prices create a better hunt, then I am for it. If that means less people can afford the tags so be it.
If less people can afford the tags and that means I have the opportunity to get more or better hunts, again I’m all for it.

 

[vanish]

If raising DEA prices create a better hunt, then I am for it. If that means less people can afford the tags so be it.
If less people can afford the tags and that means I have the opportunity to get more or better hunts, again I’m all for it.

Seems like many people are eager to say this until the cost finally exceeds their own budget. A very dangerous path.

 

[RIVER_RAT]

Seems like many people are eager to say this until the cost finally exceeds their own budget. A very dangerous path.

Its a dog eat dog world and u either do more so u can do more or sit on butt and b!Tch.

 

[TOGIE]

Its a dog eat dog world and u either do more so u can do more or sit on butt and b!Tch.

The words of an intellectual right here.

 

[bts09]

Seems like many people are eager to say this until the cost finally exceeds their own budget. A very dangerous path.

Agree. And beyond that, this is a resource that probably shouldn't just go to the people who can most easily afford it. I think of it similar to how I think of national parks. I'm fine with a lottery system to determine who can go to the parks that get super crowded; I'm not fine with just jacking up entry fees so high that it prices "normal" folks out. Same with hunting--I think of it as a shared resource.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

The words of an intellectual right here.

Not the wordsmithery of @noharleyyet but he makes a valid point.

 

[RIVER_RAT]

Agree. And beyond that, this is a resource that probably shouldn't just go to the people who can most easily afford it. I think of it similar to how I think of national parks. I'm fine with a lottery system to determine who can go to the parks that get super crowded; I'm not fine with just jacking up entry fees so high that it prices "normal" folks out. Same with hunting--I think of it as a shared resource.

But see the thing is the prices for tags are already criminally low! They could slap a $3000 price tag on it and it will still be in high demand. 50% increase is nothing!

 

[RIVER_RAT]

Not the wordsmithery of @noharleyyet but he makes a valid point.

Lol I get in a rush typing sometimes and grammar goes out the window but my point stands.

 

[TOGIE]

Not the wordsmithery of @noharleyyet but he makes a valid point.

i don't agree with it though.

i mean, NR hunting is already a luxury that some people simply can't afford. but i agree with wind gypsy, raising costs in hopes of pricing people out to make it "better" for themselves and then telling the "whiners" who just got priced out to get off their asses and make some more money makes you just as bad, if not worse than the outfitters and their welfare subsidies.

me me me. don't care what happens to anyone, anything, or any species as long as i get more 220" elks hanging on the wall.

pathetic.

 

[RobertD]

I ride the fence in some ways, higher prices don't bother me as much because I don't see me ever going out west more than once or twice a year. I'll just make it once a year if I have to. At the same time it is a bummer to get priced out and it could happen to me one day too so...

 

[PrairieHunter]

The words of an intellectual right here.

Its' true. The world is not set up for poor people to have the same life of those who have $. Hunting included.

Making jokes about him does not change that fact.

 

[warmer]

So the prices get raised till less people can afford it and the next generation of hunters sits at home and shoots their elk, deer and antelope on the XBOX?

 

[TOGIE]

Its' true. The world is not set up for poor people to have the same life of those who have $. Hunting included.

Making jokes about him does not change that fact.

that fact is irrelevant.

what's relevant here is a hope or hypothetical attempt to further change the status quo for the better and benefit of those with more. i.e. being a selfish bastard.

all these things are antithetical to the north american model. be it outfitter welfare or hoping to price people out of the game for the benefit of, what's the word? oh yeah, "yourself" or "me"

me me me

no one will be laughing when cam and joe are the only ones tagging out bull elk anymore.

 

[bullbugle307]

Why don't we think about it in terms of doing right by the resource? I think we should raise prices on everyone, pretty significantly, and use it for habitat and access. You guys are mostly engaged in a pissing match that has to do with ME ME ME. My ability to buy a tag, blah blah blah. Are tags too cheap? Clearly. Has habitat and access degraded? Duh!

Can we remember that the whole point of license fees is to support and improve the resource? Not to make sure blue collar individuals can afford their out of state hunts every year.

 

[bts09]

But see the thing is the prices for tags are already criminally low! They could slap a $3000 price tag on it and it will still be in high demand. 50% increase is nothing!

We're not talking about demand. Of course they could jack the prices up and there would still be demand. We're talking about what's fair, not what the market will bear. The whole point I'm making is that this is a resource that should not be a simple "free market economy" resource. I don't want to live in a world where only the super rich can hunt. It's already pretty darn close to that in Texas.