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

[rjthehunter]

Somebody do the math for me. What is a general tag going to cost all in, assuming you could draw it in 5 years?

Special or regular draw? $50 a year for a point (5 years = $250), $75 a year if you apply, either $692 for a regular tag, or $1,950 for the special draw. So it could be up to about $2,275. That's assuming you only apply 1 year for a tag and get the tag that year.

 

[manitou1]

This is what

Kind of on the same page as a lot of folks here, if an app fee increase is being used to directly improve either access or habitat, I can live with that. But to make hunters pay more and then use that money to compensate landowners for damage caused by elk? Whatever batch of crack they're smoking must be good stuff. I'm no expert but I feel like maybe, just maybe we could come up with a simpler and more cost effective solution to help landowners with elk problems......

This is what you get when your politicians are ranchers.

 

[manitou1]

Why should hunters fund private land owners who don't allow access?

Maybe the LO tags should have a $75 hunter's fee to pay hunters for thinning the herds.

 

[cgasner1]

This is what

This is what you get when your politicians are ranchers.

Something something something…..what you vote for

 

[elkantlers]

Live now

 

[antelopedundee]

If you recieve funds for crop damage, you should be bound to allow hunters access to your land. HMAs work well, are controlled and structured, no reason we can't use that management style for private ranches receiving public funding. Wyoming has been good to me, I don't like to badmouth G&F, but this is a little much.

Quite some years ago I was visiting family in Minnesota. Picked up the local paper and there was an article about landowners in Wisconsin across the river keeping deer populations high in order to receive damage payments. It was proposed to require them to allow hunting in order to receive funds. Not sure how it ever worked out.

I expect the most damage in WY is done by elk. Do landowners get damage money above that provided by the landowner coupon? I assume that they get the coupon because they feed them and not necessarily for damage.

If they can justify it a small increase each year over several years is better than a big blow like they propose. They know too that if you want to hunt that you'll suck it up and pay the piper.

 

[Treeshark]

Picked up the local paper and there was an article about landowners in Wisconsin across the river keeping deer populations high in order to receive damage payments. It was proposed to require them to allow hunting in order to receive funds.

That did happen, but it is so easily abused (similar to some BM problems out west) that it’s not really worthwhile.

“Oh, sorry… yep all of our spots are full.” Then you only ever see their vehicles anywhere near the land. Not worth the hassle imo.

 

[seeth07]

Man I really wish Buzz had a nice visual there with the "math actually done" for a lot of the questions he was asked. Would have been powerful.

 

[Alabama]

50% bonus squared and 50% random for sheep and moose.

 

[BuzzH]

50% bonus squared and 50% random for sheep and moose.

Long way to go yet.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Long way to go yet.

Thanks for your contributions on this.

 

[perma]

“… to keep up with inflation”.

Then raise the price of the tags for residents. Don’t tack on another fee that sportsfolks don’t benefit from.

Yeah, sure listened to public comment.

 

[RunNGunSC]

Reasonable outcome on Moose legislation. Although it’s clear it could change drastically before it’s finalized. The 50% squared bonus provides value to all point holders, while providing preference based on seniority. The 2029 implementation date also allows high point holders an off ramp. As you’ve all said, they don’t have to keep chasing a specific glory tag. The 50% random helps all hunters and helps transition to a long term solution. I would have gone 100% squared or unsquared bonus without a transaction period, but as I’ve said before there are several workable solutions. Keeping a preference system isn’t one of them.

 

[BuzzH]

Reasonable outcome on Moose legislation. Although it’s clear it could change drastically before it’s finalized. The 50% squared bonus provides value to all point holders, while providing preference based on seniority. The 2029 implementation date also allows high point holders an off ramp. As you’ve all said, they don’t have to keep chasing a specific glory tag. The 50% random helps all hunters and helps transition to a long term solution. I would have gone 100% squared or unsquared bonus without a transaction period, but as I’ve said before there are several workable solutions. Keeping a preference system isn’t one of them.

There will be drastic changes before now and February, Nesvik being gone, one of several.

Don't get your hopes up.

 

[RunNGunSC]

My hope is that they fix an issue. The system fraudulently takes money from thousands of point buyers annually. It’s not even questionable using WY’s statements from todays meeting. It is deceitful. WY has sold worthless points every year since 90/10. The case is clear. SC fully refunded historical points and redesigned and eliminated a broken draw. WY just wants money and isn’t above taking advantage of the ignorant who believe states operate with a certain level of good faith.

 

[RunNGunSC]

And by the way, this change probably does little for my personal draw odds. It would be better for the hunting public and future hunters.

 

[Addicting]

Glad to see the amendment that it is at time of application not each individual application. For residents that works well, for NR it’s better but we still have that January elk deadline. So if we only wanted to pay one fee we have to have all of our applications done in January when almost none of the data is ready. This will increase the loan and transaction fee we are giving to WY quite a bit of you apply for more than one species.

 

[perma]

Glad to see the amendment that it is at time of application not each individual application. For residents that works well, for NR it’s better but we still have that January elk deadline. So if we only wanted to pay one fee we have to have all of our applications done in January when almost none of the data is ready. This will increase the loan and transaction fee we are giving to WY quite a bit of you apply for more than one species.

It’s still kind of screwed up. NR’s apply up to 3 times each year, one elk, one everything else and one leftover (at least that’s what I did last year). What they should have done, if they HAD to keep the fee, is to make it like a stamp and just buy it once for the year.

 

[BuzzH]

Glad to see the amendment that it is at time of application not each individual application. For residents that works well, for NR it’s better but we still have that January elk deadline. So if we only wanted to pay one fee we have to have all of our applications done in January when almost none of the data is ready. This will increase the loan and transaction fee we are giving to WY quite a bit of you apply for more than one species.

That one won't stay the same, totally destroys the case for increased revenue from app fees.

I'm shocked, but not really, that Nesvik didn't say more about that.

I was laughing when that amendment was adopted.

Literally could decrease revenue over current app fees.

 

[BuzzH]

My hope is that they fix an issue. The system fraudulently takes money from thousands of point buyers annually. It’s not even questionable using WY’s statements from todays meeting. It is deceitful. WY has sold worthless points every year since 90/10. The case is clear. SC fully refunded historical points and redesigned and eliminated a broken draw. WY just wants money and isn’t above taking advantage of the ignorant who believe states operate with a certain level of good faith.

So don't apply, simple solution to your woes.