Wyoming $75 NR application fee proposal and more...

[Oak]

That being splitting the baby 50/50 between random and preference. A simple change of "75-25" to "50-50".

That would double the amount of tags for those in the random side, but still reward the long term applicant.

Haven't opened up the quotas to look, but I think it would do far more than double the random side in reality. At 50/50, a unit would only need 2 NR tags for one in the random, vs. 4 at 75/25.

 

[shelbycoltd]

I'm already there man as far as western big game hunting goes. The freezer can be filled hunting at home, and the adventure can still be had out west while fly fishing (and there's less people around). If I can get the adventure without the crazy non-resident hunting prices, maybe I should just fish.

this.
but hiking, skiing, biking.
and I'm thinking about buying a sled.

 

[BuzzH]

Haven't opened up the quotas to look, but I think it would do far more than double the random side in reality. At 50/50, a unit would only need 2 NR tags for one in the random, vs. 4 at 75/25.

Correct, and the other solution I thought may work is to change the statute (or regulation can't remember) to 25% of the total quota VS. unit specific quota for NR moose and sheep. Best would be 50-50 AND use the statewide quota instead of unit specific quota.

That would be a good thing for both R and NR as it would open up units every few years for a random tag that typically always go in the preference draw. Would be very beneficial to NR's that want to hunt some of the areas that don't require a guide and don't have grizzlies.

 

[Oak]

Correct, and the other solution I thought may work is to change the statute (or regulation can't remember) to 25% of the total quota VS. unit specific quota for NR moose and sheep. Best would be 50-50 AND use the statewide quota instead of unit specific quota.

That would be a good thing for both R and NR as it would open up units every few years for a random tag that typically always go in the preference draw. Would be very beneficial to NR's that want to hunt some of the areas that don't require a guide and don't have grizzlies.

At the current unit-specific NR quota, random moose licenses would have been 7 vs. 1 in 2024 (assuming rounding in 3 tag units goes to the points side).

Sheep would go from 0 to 6 on the random side.

(don't check my math)

 

[BuzzH]

At the current unit-specific NR quota, random moose licenses would have been 7 vs. 1 in 2024 (assuming rounding in 3 tag units goes to the points side).

Sheep would go from 0 to 6 on the random side.

(don't check my math)

That sounds right.

Only fly in the ointment for sheep and moose is if NR's draw the trifecta tag and sheep/moose specific super tag. Those are now finally getting deducted per statute from the NR quota that the GF had not done prior to this year.

A good friend of mine pointed that out to me 2 years ago and I was the bad guy that broke the news to the GF Director and Commission.

Why there wasn't a NR random sheep tag this year.

 

[NDGuy]

 

[Ben Lamb]

If the goal is truly more animals on the landscape than taking financial care of these guys is a wise move.

If not via this type of program, it should come in some other way if we are really interested in increasing game animal populations. There is another way that works well elsewhere, but I’m not so sure people will like that one either.

@Treeshark found the nut here.

The financial incentive for landowners to allow access is a much different calculation than anyone else. Hunters, rightfully, want to be able to help by taking animals through legal means, while not spending money on something that isn't going to ultimately solve any problem other than some folks who work to increase their yield through another cash payment.

Other issues come in to play in terms of animal use of a property and timing. Those elk may be on the hay field from May through August, but come September, they're out. Or they may winter on a place and then head up to the forest, so hunting isn't really going to help with those issues.

I've yet to find a game damage payment system that has done anything to address the issue of problematic concentration, only compensate people after the fact. That's a shitty way to run a business, personally. And it's not the best way to run a government program. The predator compensation funds are different, but even those are moving towards prevention rather than paying only for loss.

If Americans want wildlife in robust numbers, they have to work together the people who own large swaths of wildlife habitat. But I think we have to get away from the damage model, because it's still not helping landowners, and it does nothing to increase tolerance. Focusing on the front end of the issue would make far more sense, especially from the Ag perspective. Lobbyists and politicians love damage programs because they all can go home and claim to have fixed a problem without actually fixing it. Agencies hate damage programs because it disincentivizes the landowner to work with the agency and hunters hate them because they aren't even getting tolerance purchased for their license dollars.

Access Yes is the best place for any increase to go. That program would do way more to reduce problematic concentration than anything else, along with conservation easements and grassbanking, etc.

The wildlife, for most ranching families I've talked with, is a valuable asset and an incredible financial burden - no different on a spreadsheet than your fuel, seed, feed and tractors. When those don't pencil out, then shit just doesn't work anymore.

The kind of revenue that would be raised with this proposal could be transformative to agriculture and access in Wyoming, but folks have to let the old models go and focus on finding better approaches together.

 

[Treeshark]

For the record, I can tell you right now how this is going to go. Resident app fees will not increase a penny but NR fees will go straight to $75.

Its also not about the fee increase, as much as where its going. But, I get it that reading sign is not your strong suit.

But you never fail to disappoint in your asshatery though!

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if you’re right on that- that’s the way things go.

Ease up on the swearing and name calling though, man- this isn’t the Campfire.

 

[Walkathon]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Not that anyone cares, but I probably won't be applying in hopes of drawing in the random drawings at $75 a chance. Wonder if will affect over all NR app numbers if it's implemented. Especially if that's where the money is going.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Paid to let them live, paid to let someone hunt, paid to have someone outfit.

Stop helping these dolts out by shooting cows on private for free to "help out." I will never hunt anywhere private where I am not allowed to shoot either sex.

Why is your recreation more important than a landowner's operation?

While I get the sentiment as a statement against cleaning up someone else's' mess or pushing back against exclusivity, it's precisely stuff like this that tells landowners hunters don't care much about what they're going through. If someone is gracious enough to ask me to hunt on their property, they get to decide what I'm hunting. It's their land and access that they have shared with me.

If someone allows you to chase antlerless, take it. Start a relationship with that person and get to know them. It doesn't hurt and you end up with more friends and a place to hunt.

 

[perma]

Email sent.

Good to be a landowner in WY..... sheesh.

 

[noharleyyet]

 

[manitou1]

Been meaning to put this out there, the TRW committee is proposing a couple real gems for bills regarding Wyoming.

Raising nonrefundable NR application fees from $15 to $75 dollars and Resident application fees from $5 to $20.

To make matters worse a good portion of those fees going to the landowner damage compensation fund. We already fully fund the damage fund via license fees.

Hunting license application fees increase.Sponsored by: Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife & Cultural Resources Interim CommitteeA BILLfor1 AN ACT relating to game and fish; authorizing the game and 2 fish commission to set application fees for hunting 3 licenses as specified; and providing for an effective date.45 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:67 Section 1. W.S. 23-2-101(e)is amended to read:89 23-2-101. Fees; restrictions; nonresident application fee; 10 nonresident licenses; verification of residency required; 11 donation of refunded application fees.122025 STATE OF WYOMING 25LSO-0057Working Draft0.62 [Bill Number]1 (e) Resident and nonresident license applicants shall 2 pay an application fee in an amount specified by this 3 subsection upon submission of an application for purchase 4 of any limited quota drawing for big or trophy game license 5 or wild bison license. The resident application fee6 Application fees shall be five dollars ($5.00) established 7 by rule and shall not exceed twenty dollars ($20.00) for 8 resident applications and the seventy-five dollars ($75.00) 9 for nonresident application fee shall be fifteen dollars 10 ($15.00)applications. The application fee is in addition to 11 the fees prescribed by subsections (f) and (j) of this 12 section and by W.S. 23-2-107 and shall be payable to the 13 department either directly or through an authorized selling 14 agent of the department. At the beginning of each month, 15 the commission shall set aside all of the fees collected 16 during calendar year 1980 and not to exceed twenty-five 17 percent (25%) of the fees collected thereafter pursuant to 18 this subsection to establish and maintain a working balance 19 of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00), to 20 compensate owners or lessees of property damaged by game 21 animals and game birds.


So, that brings me to the next step, which explains the GF wanted more funds diverted to the landowner damage claim fund.

That would be this little gem that the GF is using to end run legislation that failed last year.

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/media/30355/download?inline

(iii) Extraordinary damage to grass shall include damage to forage on privately owned or privately leased rangelands under the following conditions: (A) Where a big game animal herd is over objective as established by the Commission for three (3) or more consecutive years and damage by over objective big game animals exceeds fifteen percent (15%) of the estimated annual forage production which shall be based on the standard Animal Unit Month (AUM) of forage consumed equivalent to seven hundred fifty (750) pounds of dry forage. For purposes of this subsection, over objective big game animal herds means a population estimate that indicates a herd unit is greater than twenty percent (20%) above the numerical herd objective as set by the Commission; or, (B) Damage to rangelands by big game animals that exceeds thirty percent (30%) or more of the estimated annual forage production based on the standard AUM of forage consumed equivalent to seven hundred fifty (750) pounds of dry forage.

Under this proposed regulation change, the GF added the EXACT verbiage to regulation that I literally received phone calls from upper GF staff to oppose in last years legislation. The reason was because this will cost Sportsmen millions in revenue to compensate ranchers for elk eating their grass.

It's pretty special that the GF and commission as well as the legislature are acting in partnership to knife sportsmen and wildlife in the back. Its one thing to sort of know that may be going on, it's a totally different thing to make it this blatant.

I would strongly suggest that Residents in particular make contact immediately with the GF commission and ask them to oppose the Chapter 28 proposed regulation changes. I would also encourage you to contact the TRW committee and let them know you oppose the application fee increases to both R and NR applicants.

NR, feel free to contact as well if you're so inclined but realize you don't have the sway that residents do.

A result of ranchers being politicians. Free welfare handouts to ranchers!

Let people hunt the elk... problem solved!

It chaps me when the good ol' "conservative" governor (rancher) touts that WY has a $870 million budget surplus to last through 2026 and the WG&F has a large surplus... but then they start shafting the hunters, even residents.

I hunted a state last fall whereas an archery deer tag was $20 for two deer of either sex and two turkey.
Their Hunt/Fish combo license was $20.

A rifle deer permit was $18.

Deer doe tags were $7!

These are their resident fees.

Non-res deer was $150.

Wyoming is becoming greedy, no matter the cost to residents who are already taking it in the shorts due to the economy and property taxes. Non-residents too.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Why is your recreation more important than a landowner's operation?

While I get the sentiment as a statement against cleaning up someone else's' mess or pushing back against exclusivity, it's precisely stuff like this that tells landowners hunters don't care much about what they're going through. If someone is gracious enough to ask me to hunt on their property, they get to decide what I'm hunting. It's their land and access that they have shared with me.

If someone allows you to chase antlerless, take it. Start a relationship with that person and get to know them. It doesn't hurt and you end up with more friends and a place to hunt.

I suppose Id feel different if they lined my pockets. Do antlered animals somehow not eat on private land?

 

[Treeshark]

Do antlered animals somehow not eat on private land?

They eat even more, because they are bigger.

(That’s why landowners are always trying to get antlered tags- to protect their crops and grass)

 

[BuzzH]

@Treeshark found the nut here.

The financial incentive for landowners to allow access is a much different calculation than anyone else. Hunters, rightfully, want to be able to help by taking animals through legal means, while not spending money on something that isn't going to ultimately solve any problem other than some folks who work to increase their yield through another cash payment.

Other issues come in to play in terms of animal use of a property and timing. Those elk may be on the hay field from May through August, but come September, they're out. Or they may winter on a place and then head up to the forest, so hunting isn't really going to help with those issues.

I've yet to find a game damage payment system that has done anything to address the issue of problematic concentration, only compensate people after the fact. That's a shitty way to run a business, personally. And it's not the best way to run a government program. The predator compensation funds are different, but even those are moving towards prevention rather than paying only for loss.

If Americans want wildlife in robust numbers, they have to work together the people who own large swaths of wildlife habitat. But I think we have to get away from the damage model, because it's still not helping landowners, and it does nothing to increase tolerance. Focusing on the front end of the issue would make far more sense, especially from the Ag perspective. Lobbyists and politicians love damage programs because they all can go home and claim to have fixed a problem without actually fixing it. Agencies hate damage programs because it disincentivizes the landowner to work with the agency and hunters hate them because they aren't even getting tolerance purchased for their license dollars.

Access Yes is the best place for any increase to go. That program would do way more to reduce problematic concentration than anything else, along with conservation easements and grassbanking, etc.

The wildlife, for most ranching families I've talked with, is a valuable asset and an incredible financial burden - no different on a spreadsheet than your fuel, seed, feed and tractors. When those don't pencil out, then shit just doesn't work anymore.

The kind of revenue that would be raised with this proposal could be transformative to agriculture and access in Wyoming, but folks have to let the old models go and focus on finding better approaches together.

Big problem, there is NO incentive for those collecting the damage claims to allow access.

@JM77 just got off the phone with the GF and according to his source, there is no regulation or statute that a landowner has to allow ANY access like there was previously. Even if the statute/regulation still applies (sounding doubtful), the GF has no desire to ensure that those collecting damages are allowing hunting.

The only way I would support this is IF, and ONLY IF, the required hunter numbers were run through the accessyes program. If not, then tough shit about your elk problem. There is no desire or way to track whether or not a current damage recipient is allowing hunting.

 

[BuzzH]

Why is your recreation more important than a landowner's operation?

While I get the sentiment as a statement against cleaning up someone else's' mess or pushing back against exclusivity, it's precisely stuff like this that tells landowners hunters don't care much about what they're going through. If someone is gracious enough to ask me to hunt on their property, they get to decide what I'm hunting. It's their land and access that they have shared with me.

If someone allows you to chase antlerless, take it. Start a relationship with that person and get to know them. It doesn't hurt and you end up with more friends and a place to hunt.

Right, that works really well. I've told Magagna on multiple occasions, tell me who your landowner buddies are that are having the elk issues, I'll solve it. I have a list of NR friends and family that would drop everything to shoot a cow elk for them. I mean killers too, not some half-assed clown that is afraid to leave the seat of the truck, can't remember the last time they shot their rifles, etc.

Crickets...

I also agree that it is their land, but if they want something FROM me, then I want something from them. Nobody should get a free lunch, in particular when its alleged that both sides want the same outcome. Hunters want elk they don't want.

 

[thomas89]

Oof, if these increases are passed, I'm sure eventually these damage claims will be a better financial move than allowing access via the AccessYes programs.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Right, that works really well. I've told Magagna on multiple occasions, tell me who your landowner buddies are that are having the elk issues, I'll solve it. I have a list of NR friends and family that would drop everything to shoot a cow elk for them. I mean killers too, not some half-assed clown that is afraid to leave the seat of the truck, can't remember the last time they shot their rifles, etc.

Crickets...

I also agree that it is their land, but if they want something FROM me, then I want something from them. Nobody should get a free lunch, in particular when its alleged that both sides want the same outcome. Hunters want elk they don't want.

Not much disagreement but I'm just gonna say it, don't ask the lobbyist.

Ask real humans.

 

[seeth07]

There are many ways in which the government can help assist landowners in having a higher tolerance and acceptance of wildlife on their land because lets face it, for most the tolerance and acceptance is only being lowered nationwide on private lands. I'm even guilty because as much I support saving wildlife habitat, I'm about to close on selling part of my property because some rich guy really wants to build there. The $$$ far exceeds the wildlife habitat to me.

Paying for damaged crops due to wildlife is about as low on the list of options as it gets in my opinion for exactly the reasons @Ben Lamb pointed out above. Paying for conservation easements or providing property tax breaks for supporting habitat is probably near the top with everything else (landowner tags, access programs, etc.) somewhere in between.