Kenetrek Boots

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

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
17,536
Location
Laramie, WY
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.


(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.
 
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.
I would fully support this if the entire increase went directly to Access Yes or the walk-in hunting/fishing program. But you are right, putting it to landowner damage comp fund is lame.
 
“We” in this case meaning residents? Or residents and nonresidents combined?
Dude! Why do you have to be that way? @BuzzH is trying to inform all of us,“we”, about some shady legislation that would impact all of us. Don’t turn it into a NR vs. R thing. No one needs to hear about how us NR are getting screwed over or whatever your heartburn is about. There’s enough of that going on and it doesn’t help the situation.
Just take the information and join the fight to stop it or get out of the way, quit with the bitching.
 
I would fully support this if the entire increase went directly to Access Yes or the walk-in hunting/fishing program. But you are right, putting it to landowner damage comp fund is lame.
Agreed. I don’t necessarily hate the price increase but seeing it just be a further slush fund for farmers and ranchers is a hard sell
 
I would fully support this if the entire increase went directly to Access Yes or the walk-in hunting/fishing program. But you are right, putting it to landowner damage comp fund is lame.
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.
 
I love that ranchers are incentivized to not let hunters solve their elk "problems". Let's fill that fund up with price increases!!!

Glad that this rubs the residents the wrong way too.
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.
 
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.
 
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.

No way! You literally get called out for making everything about NR non-existent struggle (like usual), back track, and then do it again? 🤣
 
I would fully support this if the entire increase went directly to Access Yes or the walk-in hunting/fishing program. But you are right, putting it to landowner damage comp fund is lame.
Yeah, and that's one of the major sticking points with me as well.

The GF, Landowners, and stock growers are systematically NOT utilizing the very best tool to control elk numbers, that being hunters.

You hear a whole host of excuses why they don't want hunters or they want to hand pick certain hunters or just want friends and family...plus they want an outfitter for bulls, plus they want damage on top of it all.

There are provisions in regulation that landowners must allow a certain level of hunting before they can claim damage. But, I can assure you that nobody with the GF is following up on that stuff or monitoring it.

My solution would be to force landowners to run those qualifying number of hunters through the accessyes program before they received any damage claims.

Also, the new definitions in regulation about damage to grass are a joke. Who determines 15% and how do you determine what ate that 15%? Of course there is also the question of why the GF was making phone calls to oppose the same language in a bill last session but now seems fine with placing the same shit sandwich in regulation. Not to mention if what they are asking the commission to do is even something the commission is legally allowed to change. I read all the title 23 regs regarding promulgating rules and regulations and I don't believe they have the statutory authority to do it. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see it specified.
 
What are the odds of the proposed squared bonus point draw for sheep and moose actually passing?
I don't know, not many people are supporting it. I'm going to personally recommend 50/50 random/preference and keep the system the same.

There's a wild idea from Cyrus Western about adopting something like Idaho where you can only apply for one species a year. Thats going nowhere is my guess.

Quite frankly, I really don't give a FF anymore...let those that still have skin in the game fight it out. I'm over it.
 
Thank you for drawing attention to ongoing legislation. While we don’t always agree, this seems like another money grab with little to no benefits for wildlife or hunters. I don’t understand the aggressive anti-NR behavior the last several years. WY wants our decades of support and loyalty, but don’t expect fair treatment or even good faith behavior from WY. Just take the money and run
 
Back
Top