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

[bts09]

But, do you really think hunters are getting priced out of hunting as a whole? Maybe, moving towards more getting priced out of some western hunting I can see, but plenty of other opportunities.

As an example anyone can decide to come to WI as a NR on a whim and buy deer tags OTC for $160 gets you a buck tag and depending on area up to 2 doe tags. Doe tags (dependent on area) can be bought unlimited for $20 a tag.

I don't know if anyone is getting priced out right now or not. Probably there are plenty of people who are priced out of the hunt they want, but not priced out of hunting--and so I agree with you that, if what you want to do is hunt, and you don't much care what animal or where, there are almost certainly still opportunities within everyone's budget.

What I'm saying, and I think Togie and others are saying, is that we need to be thoughtful about raising prices--does it benefit the wildlife? does it harm people who are the best conservationists? does it create perverse incentives? etc.

Sure, affordable opportunities still exist. But they're going away. That's the point. They might exist today, but there are fewer today than yesterday, and it's not just because we're not doing a good job of growing the resource.

So when you hear me say things like "priced out," I'm saying: there are fewer and fewer and fewer affordable opportunities. And once they all disappear, we will be. And moreover, if we're going to charge more for tags, to residents or non-residents or whoever, let's not just do it willy-nilly.

 

[WIbiggame]

@bts09 and @Shangobango thanks for the responses. Your opinions make great sense and appreciate the feedback.

I agree with you both and others that if the tag price benefits wildlife it's all good however if it doesn't it will do more harm than good.

Riasing tags 30-50% isn't going to even make a small dent in the people applying imo. Also like mentioned by others people who really want to hunt out west will find a way to make the finances happen. Where you might see a drop in applications is people who want to "give it a try" because Instagram and YouTube make it look cool. The people who are making public comments and want what is best for wildlife aren't going anyplace as been proven in MT and now here in WY.

 

[Shangobango]

I don’t think anyone was arguing more money to the resource via game agencies is bad….

Raising prices with the hope, intent, the wish, to price people out is bad.

Exactly.

 

[SAJ-99]

I don’t think anyone was arguing more money to the resource via game agencies is bad….

Raising prices with the hope, intent, the wish, to price people out is bad.

That’s probably something Sy would like to see.

I don’t know why but me saying such a thing will really work people up and put very odd ideas and interpretations about what I’m saying in their head. The darndest thing…

Prices in anything are meant to be the market-clearing mechanism that allows supply and demand to match. By nature it is meant to price some people out. In the case of tags, prices don’t use an open market structure. Prices are set by WGF to 1) fund a budget and 2) to let some generic version of Average Joe hunt. For some, there is a strong odor of socialism to this structure. I don’t have a problem with it, but it leads to these conversations.

Saying “I’m fine with price increases as long at it helps the resource” has its own problems. It can be countered that elk populations are at or near all-time highs so no increase in that tag is justified. Maybe the money should go to mule deer or antelope or CWD? Often people want to see the positive result, such as the migration initiative for example, before they want to pay the extra money. It ends in an argument about how to define and measure the costs and benefits. It’s a mess.

I would be fine if the money went to purchasing land or easement to increase public access in the checkerboard cluster-muck that is Wyoming. But the state is as deep Red as any and few like the idea of the government owning more land, so the idea is DOA.

 

[jabber]

I would be fine with the increase if they would use it to buy and install ladders

 

[TOGIE]

Prices in anything are meant to be the market-clearing mechanism that allows supply and demand to match. By nature it is meant to price some people out. In the case of tags, prices don’t use an open market structure. Prices are set by WGF to 1) fund a budget and 2) to let some generic version of Average Joe hunt. For some, there is a strong odor of socialism to this structure. I don’t have a problem with it, but it leads to these conversations.

Saying “I’m fine with price increases as long at it helps the resource” has its own problems. It can be countered that elk populations are at or near all-time highs so no increase in that tag is justified. Maybe the money should go to mule deer or antelope or CWD? Often people want to see the positive result, such as the migration initiative for example, before they want to pay the extra money. It ends in an argument about how to define and measure the costs and benefits. It’s a mess.

I would be fine if the money went to purchasing land or easement to increase public access in the checkerboard cluster-muck that is Wyoming. But the state is as deep Red as any and few like the idea of the government owning more land, so the idea is DOA.

and for me, i'd be fine if they wanna raise the prices for nearly any reason. whether the budget could use it, or they know they could ramp up law enforcement to counter poaching and bad behavior, new migration corridor protections, or hell, they need to pad the pension fund for G&F employees, or frankly just because they can and sometimes prices should have adjustments given CPI.

but if we have people like Sy or others on the TF (now i'm not saying he's actually doing this, but it doesn't seem that far fetched) who start pondering some new scheme where they get the special tags increased by like 80-150% and then maybe the draw odds will increase such that his high paying clients can find some certainty in drawing tags....

all of the sudden i have a REAL problem with the price increase.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

but if we have people like Sy or others on the TF (now i'm not saying he's actually doing this, but it doesn't seem that far fetched) who start pondering some new scheme where they get the special tags increased by like 80-150% and then maybe the draw odds will increase such that his high paying clients can find some certainty in drawing tags....

Far fetched? This is 100% what he and others on the TF want. They are not bashful about saying it.

 

[TOGIE]

Far fetched? This is 100% what he and others on the TF want. They are not bashful about saying it.

then there we go. given that i only catch snippets of what he and others say, mostly from this website, I didn't want to put words in mouths on a topic like this, even if that's what i felt might be going on given their nature and past comments.

 

[SAJ-99]

Far fetched? This is 100% what he and others on the TF want. They are not bashful about saying it.

Sy better be careful. He doesn't know the elasticity of demand for WY guiding services any more than the rest of us do. Raise the price enough and many of those clients could just as easily hunt a New Mexico landowner tag.

I think most guides have a problem with the draw being so late. WY takes the money on Jan 31 and doesn't do the draw until May. Guides learn they have slots to fill in 90days and potentially tell employees they won't be needed or income will be lower. Running a business like that is certainly hard.