Wyoming Applications

[MessyTessy]

All I said was I wish they would try to quit funding G&F on the backs of hunters, especially nonresident hunters. Is it okay that I wish that? Even if you guys don't wish that?? I just want to know what I'm allowed to wish for. OK?

It’s great and all that it works in MO.

What’s the saying about wishing in one hand?

Genuinely, every state should have the same model. But at this time it ain’t happening. Especially not in an incredibly red state like Wyoming. Heck they couldn’t get a bird seed tax going in Connecticut.

 

[BrentD]

I like Buzz. He is arrogant, can be obnoxious, and does belittle other people.

But as a public land advocate, he is right.

I can agree with all of this. No problem. I like Buzz too, but he can and was being, obnoxious and belittling as you pointed out. And for no reason too. But I'm good with him and his public land advocacy.

 

[BuzzH]

NO ONE said that any state owes any NR (or R for that matter) to hunt on any land public, private, state or federal. Why do you and Buzz keep putting words in people's mouths?

Are you saying we don't have the "absolute right" (gotta love that phrase) to complain if we want? Show me the legislation.

Its one thing to complain/cry about your lot in life that you cant afford a NR tag...whole different issue when you make statements like this:

In a nutshell, quit funding state Game and Fish or DNR departments on the backs of hunters, and nonresident hunters in particular. This is true of my state where our very little public land is mostly state owned, but seems even more egregious in western states where most of the land on which the state is raking money is federally owned.

Just my $0.02

Why is it "more egregious" in Western States and why the reference to anything in regard to who owns the land.

If you watched the video, in the link I provided, or knew the first thing about basic wildlife law, you would never make a dumb statement like that. Wildlife and land ownership or how much federal land, state land, or private land a state has, doesn't have any correlation in regard to how the State treats you as NR. Doesn't matter if Kansas, that has very little public land, wants to ding me a dime, or a grand for a NR deer tag. I'm not buying the land, I'm purchasing the right to hunt the States Wildlife Resources. Same thing if Wyoming wants to charge you 5K for a bison tag to hunt it Grand Teton Park, or charge you $1200 for an elk to hunt it on private, or state, or federal.

I don't find it any "more egregious" that Nevada charges me $1200 for their elk tag to hunt public land, than I do Kansas charging me $515 to shoot a whitetail deer and having very little federal land there.

Frankly, I would rather pay a HIGHER NR license fee to hunt in a State that has a lot of public land than a State where I would likely have to hunt on limited public or pay additional money for private access.

But, hey, that's just me.

Either way, I'm not going to whine, cry, stomp my feet, or hold my breath because I have to pay more for a NR license for the PRIVILEGE of hunting in States (regardless of land ownership) that are gracious enough to allow me to.

What I will do, is greedily pay it and thank them for the opportunity.

 

[BuzzH]

All I said was I wish they would try to quit funding G&F on the backs of hunters, especially nonresident hunters. Is it okay that I wish that? Even if you guys don't wish that?? I just want to know what I'm allowed to wish for. OK?

Even though what you say isn't true? Why would I wish for something that isn't true?

You know what I wish, I wish people would EDUCATE themselves before they make untrue statements.

NR's are not funding a majority of the WGF Budget, that's just a fact.

The WGF annual budget is around 81 million....not even half of that comes from ALL combined license sales from every R and NR that participates in hunting or fishing in Wyoming.

So again, your statement is false...just is.

 

[BrentD]

Why is it "more egregious" in Western States and why the reference to anything in regard to who owns the land.

Because I think it is. After all, I paid as much for those lands as you did.

What I will do, is greedily pay it and thank them for the opportunity.

Great! I'm so happy for you.

 

[Addicting]

I like Buzz. He is arrogant, can be obnoxious, and does belittle other people.

But as a public land advocate, he is right.

He is always right!

Agreed, but it made me think of this. Lol

 

[BuzzH]

Because I think it is. After all, I paid as much for those lands as you did.

True, and you have the same access to it as the other 325 million people that co-own it...so nothing to complain about.

What you don't own is the wildlife that is held in trust for the Citizens of Wyoming. We aren't equal partners in that, and rightfully so...I have the bigger slice of that pie, and I ain't required to share. If Wyoming decides to share the pie with you, they set the price you pay for it...or you don't get any. Consider the special NR fee as pie a' la mode...

 

[Bullshot]

Even though what you say isn't true? Why would I wish for something that isn't true?

You know what I wish, I wish people would EDUCATE themselves before they make untrue statements.

NR's are not funding a majority of the WGF Budget, that's just a fact.

The WGF annual budget is around 81 million....not even half of that comes from ALL combined license sales from every R and NR that participates in hunting or fishing in Wyoming

So again, your statement is false...just is.

Hey Buzz - can we explore this a little bit more. It might be a way to both show that NR are not carrying ALL the financial water for WY, but may also show that we do a damn good bit of contributing to the cause - so maybe we can all get back to respecting each other a bit.

I did some back of the envelope calcs, based on statements like this: “Hunters and anglers continue to fund the bulk of our conservation work — approximately almost 60 percent from license fees,” Deputy Director John Kennedy told the Game and Fish Commission in Pinedale this fall. Another 20 percent comes from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson tax money, making sportsmens’ contributions “almost 80 percent of our budget,”

Based on your number of 81,000,000 budget, that would mean that: 48,600,000 comes from licences. If 90% of those licences are resident licences, and only 10% are non-resident (at approximately 10X the resident cost) that would mean that the non resident fees collected by Wyoming, likely equal and possibly exceed the licence fees collected from residents - right?

And additional 20%, or 16,200,000 comes from excise taxes collected nationally and distributed to states based on area, hunting licence numbers, etc. It is hard for me to figure any value here, but it would seem that the amounts collected from non-residents would probably equal or exceed those funds generated in-state.

Finally, an additional 20% must come from other private/local/State/Federal Grants. Really difficult to attribute that to one group or another.

My point is not to stir the pot. Not at all. Your comments were what interested me in researching this, quickly as I have. I am sure my numbers are not spot on. BUT - would it not be fair to say that NR licence fees are an EXTREMELY important source of revenue? I am not asking if the fees are too high or too low. Just trying to put in perspective that maybe all the negative vibe is over the top on both sides, but it would be nice to hear a positive acknowledgement that NR's are more than just an irritant and maybe actually partners. Please absolutely check and correct anything I have put here or concluded. Again, not to stir the pot.

 

[Cerebral Stalker]

I think WY is much more generous in their nonresident tag allocation than most of the other states. WY has a limit of 16 percent of limited quota tags for nonresidents. I'd be complaining about the other states before I complain about WY guys.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I think WY is much more generous in their nonresident tag allocation than most of the other states. WY has a limit of 16 percent of limited quota tags for nonresidents. I'd be complaining about the other states before I complain about WY guys.

That's just the % of full price elk tags and the Statute allows up to 7,250 of those tags. Then add in the antelope tags that residents don't buy that go into the NR pot on top of what NRs are allowed along with thousands of buck and doe deer tags and you certainly can't argue your initial statement because it's right on the button!

 

[WapitiBob]

NR get more than 16% by a good margin and it's the last state I'd complain about when looking at cost, quality, and quantity.

How many Bulls did Buzz and Randy see in one day....84? I drew that license with less than max points, saw nobody in the woods for 1-1/2 weeks, and my tracks were the only ones on the main road for days. I thank my lucky stars that I can hunt Wyoming.

 

[LCH]

Like some others stated, Wyoming doesn't have to be expensive. I'd personally rather have a quality hunt for a cow elk than fight hordes of people all going after the same handful of raghorn bulls. I think the reduced price tags in Wyoming are some of the best bargains in the west.

Now when I put my app in for Type 1 this year, when all is said and done I'll be in it for over $1400 if successful. I may bellyache a little when I submit my payment (not very loudly, lest my wife find out how much one of these tags cost), but you won't ear any complaining if that "Successful" result pops up when I log back on in February.

Really, you could hunt Wyoming every year for elk and do it cheaper than any other state I know of. Say you draw a General tag every 3 years on average, ballpark $900 for the tag/app fees/2 years of points. In both off years you draw a Type 6 tag, roughly $300 per. Total of $1500/3=$500 per year average tag cost. This is a pretty good value IMO, if your goal is to put elk in the freezer.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I am new to the west, but WY does seem by all accounts the best destination for a NR hunter. I am not an expert on wildlife management, but whatever WY is doing or not doing seems to be working because for the most part there seem to be animals just about everywhere. Under the current acceptance of ancient english courts' logic ("the state holds the animals in trust") WY can chose to keep their wildlife entirely to themselves and are really only incented to offer NR licenses to make money. As such NR hunters should expect to pay whatever the market will bear (which is more they the current cost by a fair amount I would guess). I hope the western states continue to see that as a part of a broader Union, that it would be short sighted to lock out NRs entirely, or turn NR hunting into the sport of the rich and famous, but for now they can do what they want. All in all, I think WY is doing great and I am thankful for the opportunity it provides.

But a little humility is in order I think, as it would only take a few words attached to a congressional budget rider to change it all - "wildlife that crosses state borders or federal lands shall be held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of all citizens; as such one's state of residence shall not prejudice access thereto". And if you say it can't/won't happen because only the states can regulate wildlife, I point you to federal involvement of waterfowl and the endangered species act - the feds can step in if they choose and change the game however they wish.

 

[beginnerhunter]

As an upper middle class income earner (depending on how you define it) it would take quite a bit more $$ to price me out of NR hunting but it would eventually happen. As VikingsGuy points out, supply and demand dictate the NR fees will continue to rise. I'd suspect most of the guys posting here who hunt NR have household incomes > $100k but think they are "middle class" or own businesses in "blue collar" industries. So you may be a bit insensitive to the fact that a lot of paycheck to paycheck folks (>75% of Americans) aren't going to consider hunting NR in the west. Which wouldn't matter if these folks had no control over what you do in WY or whatever. But they do by proxy through the Republicans they vote for.

Don't know why I'm weighing in other than I have some WY points and I'm a bit of an outsider being new to all this Western stuff. But I can tell you as an eastern hunter I NEVER cared about the public land issues everyone is passionate about around here until I made plans to start hunting the west. Most of the middle income earners in my state won't consider hunting the west, and so they won't push our Reps and Senators on the issue of public lands. I think there's a danger there.

WY or CO or even AR can do whatever they want and have that right, but there could be negative consequences for hunter recruitment.

 

[BuzzH]

But a little humility is in order I think, as it would only take a few words attached to a congressional budget rider to change it all - "wildlife that crosses state borders or federal lands shall be held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of all citizens; as such one's state of residence shall not prejudice access thereto". And if you say it can't/won't happen because only the states can regulate wildlife, I point you to federal involvement of waterfowl and the endangered species act - the feds can step in if they choose and change the game however they wish.

Both waterfowl and endangered species management took Acts of congress to get them involved...and for good reason. But, under both, there is heavy state involvement, as required by the Acts. You also left out anadromous fish management in your list as well, also per an Act of congress.

Good luck with the budget rider attachment reversing the case law regarding the States right to manage its wildlife and "changing it all". Seems to me any half decent lawyer could argue on not only the case law, but violations of the United States Constitution.

 

[VikingsGuy]

As an upper middle class income earner (depending on how you define it) it would take quite a bit more $$ to price me out of NR hunting but it would eventually happen. As VikingsGuy points out, supply and demand dictate the NR fees will continue to rise. I'd suspect most of the guys posting here who hunt NR have household incomes > $100k but think they are "middle class" or own businesses in "blue collar" industries. So you may be a bit insensitive to the fact that a lot of paycheck to paycheck folks (>75% of Americans) aren't going to consider hunting NR in the west. Which wouldn't matter if these folks had no control over what you do in WY or whatever. But they do by proxy through the Republicans they vote for.

Don't know why I'm weighing in other than I have some WY points and I'm a bit of an outsider being new to all this Western stuff. But I can tell you as an eastern hunter I NEVER cared about the public land issues everyone is passionate about around here until I made plans to start hunting the west. Most of the middle income earners in my state won't consider hunting the west, and so they won't push our Reps and Senators on the issue of public lands. I think there's a danger there.

WY or CO or even AR can do whatever they want and have that right, but there could be negative consequences for hunter recruitment.

I am blessed to be able to hunt public land at these prices and at foreseeable future prices, but I am a minority. Half of America's households pay for food, housing, transportation, education, clothing, savings, retirement, medical, dental, utilities, phone, sales taxes, property taxes, local, state and federal income taxes, etc. etc. on $61,000 a year. I get it that if you only care about hunting you can cobble together funds for an elk tag, but at current pricing that is asking a lot even of very passionate hunters in the lower half. I get it if you say out of state western hunting isn't for these people. But as beginner points out, saying this game isn't in the cards for 50% of Americans will certainly have consequences at the ballot box. If I am an out of work farm hand in Kansas who is wiling to move to get a $100k job in an oil field, I probably think that opening up more of Utah to production is a great idea - and might vote accordingly. I think we need to do more to fill the "tent" than to just just embrace the soon to pass "know your food" interest we are getting from east-coast yuppies - this will pass just as fast as their enthusiasm for urban backyard chicken coops. Hunting across America should feel real and attainable to more Americans outside of the top 10% - simpler to access, more reasonably priced. But this is not on WY alone to solve.

Sometimes on HT it seems like we want fewer people getting in our way and competing for our tags, that western hunting is only for the most committed true believers - cost is no concern, but then expect a vast majority of the uninvolved to vote for public lands, hunting friendly policies, etc. and lament the loss of a hunting culture and diminishing future interest. There are many dynamics that have marginalized hunting, most we have no control over, but the cost, complexity, and "turffy" nature of western hunting certainly doesn't make it easy to join for many many Americans.

 

[BuzzH]

Hey Buzz - can we explore this a little bit more. It might be a way to both show that NR are not carrying ALL the financial water for WY, but may also show that we do a damn good bit of contributing to the cause - so maybe we can all get back to respecting each other a bit.

I did some back of the envelope calcs, based on statements like this: “Hunters and anglers continue to fund the bulk of our conservation work — approximately almost 60 percent from license fees,” Deputy Director John Kennedy told the Game and Fish Commission in Pinedale this fall. Another 20 percent comes from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson tax money, making sportsmens’ contributions “almost 80 percent of our budget,”

Based on your number of 81,000,000 budget, that would mean that: 48,600,000 comes from licences. If 90% of those licences are resident licences, and only 10% are non-resident (at approximately 10X the resident cost) that would mean that the non resident fees collected by Wyoming, likely equal and possibly exceed the licence fees collected from residents - right?

And additional 20%, or 16,200,000 comes from excise taxes collected nationally and distributed to states based on area, hunting licence numbers, etc. It is hard for me to figure any value here, but it would seem that the amounts collected from non-residents would probably equal or exceed those funds generated in-state.

Finally, an additional 20% must come from other private/local/State/Federal Grants. Really difficult to attribute that to one group or another.

My point is not to stir the pot. Not at all. Your comments were what interested me in researching this, quickly as I have. I am sure my numbers are not spot on. BUT - would it not be fair to say that NR licence fees are an EXTREMELY important source of revenue? I am not asking if the fees are too high or too low. Just trying to put in perspective that maybe all the negative vibe is over the top on both sides, but it would be nice to hear a positive acknowledgement that NR's are more than just an irritant and maybe actually partners. Please absolutely check and correct anything I have put here or concluded. Again, not to stir the pot.

FY17 hunting and fishing license sale revenue was $30,644,316.

Throw in application fees, preference point fees, boating registrations, and conservation stamp money about another 10 million. Application fee revenue is probably going to be more significant in FY2018 as there will be no expenditures by the department for credit card fees.

All license sale money is important to the GF, but the NR hunters seem to think they fund more than residents, and that just isn't the case. The correct argument is they contribute more in license fees, but not when you look at the total budget. I suspect that's probably the case in about every Western State, more than likely every State.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Both waterfowl and endangered species management took Acts of congress to get them involved...and for good reason. But, under both, there is heavy state involvement, as required by the Acts. You also left out anadromous fish management in your list as well, also per an Act of congress.

Good luck with the budget rider attachment reversing the case law regarding the States right to manage its wildlife and "changing it all". Seems to me any half decent lawyer could argue on not only the case law, but violations of the United States Constitution.

Any half decent law student knows that acts of congress trump entirely the common law, except as otherwise limited by the constitution. And as the 3 statutes we referenced show the feds involvement in wildlife and public lands is already constitutional (and I don't buy the states rights arguments of the Utah clan). Politics will likely prevent anything close to this in our lifetime, so it is hypothetical for the moment, but the court rulings you reference are a paper tiger. As for state/fed co-involvement I didn't suggest otherwise.

Buzz, I really value all you do for public lands hunting and defer to your expertise on wildlife conservation and western hunting, but in matters of law you miss more than you hit.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I point you to federal involvement of waterfowl and the endangered species act - the feds can step in if they choose and change the game however they wish.

Had waterfowl and endangered species been previously entrusted to each state on behalf of the citizens of each state and then more broadly entrusted to the federal government due to hunting issues? I think not. Your point is not analogous to the state held authority over NR hunting licenses question.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Had waterfowl and endangered species been previously entrusted to each state on behalf of the citizens of each state and then more broadly entrusted to the federal government due to hunting issues? I think not. Your point is not analogous to the state held authority over NR hunting licenses question.

Actually states did solely regulate waterfowl hunting within in their boundaries, and there was a bunch of litigation as feds began to regulate. As for endangered species I would suggest that was implicit with "held in trust". But in either case, it is legally irrelevant if the fed previously chose not to regulate or that a state had previously regulated or not.

The feds can control just about anything that cross a border or touches fed property - there really is no question in the law about that. They can also choose not to and leave to the states - but that is their choice.

A non-hunting parallel. In 1970 every lawyer in the country would have told you that the legal drinking age was left to state law - and while not direct to this point, folks general assumed that the second section of the 21st amendment reaffirmed the general historical presumption. This was a slam dunk - a no brainer. But then in the 80's the feds decided 21 should be the minimum. And when states baulked the feds simply said that any state with a drinking age below 21 got ZERO federal highway dollars. There was crying, whining and nashing of teeth - lots of litigation - and in the end the fed won and every state moved its age.

Just imagine for a minute if the fed wanted uniform tag fees - not only could they pass the text I proffered above, but they also could say any state that sets differential fees or access to wildlife tags would get ZERO money from Pittman or BLM payments or funding for any road or bridge improvements leading to huntable areas or any other outdoor, forest, wildlife or conservation funding by the fed? How long do you think it would take before WY & MT changed? And if it worked for drinking age (and has worked for dozens of other areas of previous state autonomy) why wouldn't it work here?