Wyoming Applications

[BuzzH]

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.

I think where the hunting tradition and hunting is marginalized, is not because of access to NR hunting licenses. Its lost in the State that everyone is a resident in. In most families I know, traditions in hunting revolve, live, and die within the State the family/friends live in. Look, its a great argument on paper that the lost "tradition" of hunting out West by NR hunters is what's causing the problems. Its just not factual...pretty tough to have any kind of "tradition" when, as a NR, drawing good tags takes 2-3-5-10+ years. Traditions of hunting, involvement, and culture starts at home, hunting in the State you live in. All States have made fishing and hunting an affordable endeavor to carry on traditions, form the culture, and involvement in hunting to continue. Some think that States, other than theirs, should extend the same benefits to NR's. No, don't think so, we have Residents here that are going to get the same priority you show your residents so we can continue our culture, our traditions, and our level of involvement.

As such, trying to place the blame of involvement, culture, and traditions being lost on States that charge you more as a NR, and/or limit tags to NR to hunt is just flawed logic. Even more flawed to connect the public lands issues and lack of support because WY, MT, ID, NM, AZ, UT, NE, MS, MO, FL,KS, etc. etc....charge NR hunters more than their Residents. When I advocate for public lands, the litmus test is not based on whether I can get a cheap tag in UT, or AZ, WA, or FL...its not even whether I not I can hunt at all. Their are values, wayyyy more important than hunting in regard to public lands...you know, things like clean air, clean water, species diversity...and other nonsensical life necessities. To tie the argument to one small sliver (hunting) of what public lands are, do, represent, and afford us, is just lame...and I'm having to be real polite just calling it lame.

The focus needs to be in the States people live in for culture, tradition, and involvement, because the reality is, that no matter how much anyone argues otherwise, hunting as a NR is a luxury, period.

I think another thing to consider, is that there is no way to set the bar low enough in NR price to make sure that nobody is excluded.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Let's not pretend everybody used to hunt all over the US in the "good old days", and now they can't afford it. Unless I'm mistaken, hunting multiple states and species is a relatively new phenomenon that the "average" hunter, whatever that means, never would have considered until the last couple of decades.

There is no free lunch. It's often argued that emphasizing accessibility and low cost is worth it in the name of hunter recruitment, buy-in from non locals, etc. But it could also be argued that making anything of value (like a Wyoming deer tag) more accessible and less expensive cheapens the value of the resource, and is a net negative in the long run.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

And I'll leave you to practice imaginary law on hypothetical arguments, knock yourself out...clearly I am out matched in that Department.

 

[VikingsGuy]

And I'll leave you to practice imaginary law on hypothetical arguments, knock yourself out...clearly I am out matched in that Department.

My remarks about the law are real - the hypothetical is that anyone in DC actually cares enough to do anything about it. I am not pushing for change, I can live with the current state. It just bugs me when people post flimsy legal rationale for preserving the status quo (good or bad).

Let's be clear, a state's fee setting for hunting on federal land is not etched in a stone tablet from God, it is an artifact of history and forbearance that could change in a minute if 270 individuals (90% of whom have never fired a gun) cared to do so - and 16th century english common law and our US constitution can't prevent that. But you and I agree they probably don't give a damn about this.

[218 + 51 + 1 = 270]

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think where the hunting tradition and hunting is marginalized, is not because of access to NR hunting licenses. Its lost in the State that everyone is a resident in. In most families I know, traditions in hunting revolve, live, and die within the State the family/friends live in. Look, its a great argument on paper that the lost "tradition" of hunting out West by NR hunters is what's causing the problems. Its just not factual...pretty tough to have any kind of "tradition" when, as a NR, drawing good tags takes 2-3-5-10+ years. Traditions of hunting, involvement, and culture starts at home, hunting in the State you live in. All States have made fishing and hunting an affordable endeavor to carry on traditions, form the culture, and involvement in hunting to continue. Some think that States, other than theirs, should extend the same benefits to NR's. No, don't think so, we have Residents here that are going to get the same priority you show your residents so we can continue our culture, our traditions, and our level of involvement.

As such, trying to place the blame of involvement, culture, and traditions being lost on States that charge you more as a NR, and/or limit tags to NR to hunt is just flawed logic. Even more flawed to connect the public lands issues and lack of support because WY, MT, ID, NM, AZ, UT, NE, MS, MO, FL,KS, etc. etc....charge NR hunters more than their Residents. When I advocate for public lands, the litmus test is not based on whether I can get a cheap tag in UT, or AZ, WA, or FL...its not even whether I not I can hunt at all. Their are values, wayyyy more important than hunting in regard to public lands...you know, things like clean air, clean water, species diversity...and other nonsensical life necessities. To tie the argument to one small sliver (hunting) of what public lands are, do, represent, and afford us, is just lame...and I'm having to be real polite just calling it lame.

The focus needs to be in the States people live in for culture, tradition, and involvement, because the reality is, that no matter how much anyone argues otherwise, hunting as a NR is a luxury, period.

I think another thing to consider, is that there is no way to set the bar low enough in NR price to make sure that nobody is excluded.

I generally agree. Two additional thoughts - first, given the attractiveness of western hunting in the moment, never a bad thing to expand interest and awareness to broader communities. And along these lines, I think that younger generations are less wedded to a "state first" view and are more inclined to view things through a pan-America lens -- so WY protects WY may be a traditional approach, I am not sure that is a winning attitude in 2050. Growing up poor in ND, I get (and still largely share) the states first view of the world, I just think it doesn't fit the modern and future world as well as it once did.

 

[BuzzH]

I generally agree. Two additional thoughts - first, given the attractiveness of western hunting in the moment, never a bad thing to expand interest and awareness to broader communities. And along these lines, I think that younger generations are less wedded to a "state first" view and are more inclined to view things through a pan-America lens -- so WY protects WY may be a traditional approach, I am not sure that is a winning attitude in 2050. Growing up poor in ND, I get (and still largely share) the states first view of the world, I just think it doesn't fit the modern and future world as well as it once did.

I generally agree with expanding awareness, but awareness and tradition are not one in the same.

Does the pan-America lens come installed with blinders? Because on the one hand you like to talk tradition, culture and involvement...then the next a pan-America lens, not sure how those reconcile.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I generally agree with expanding awareness, but awareness and tradition are not one in the same.

Does the pan-America lens come installed with blinders? Because on the one hand you like to talk tradition, culture and involvement...then the next a pan-America lens, not sure how those reconcile.

I agree, not the same, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Traditions grow. As a kid I rarely enjoyed the outdoors in my home state, I grew up hunting and fishing in Canada, South Dakota, MN - the outdoors meant a long car ride and we did it with few funds. Now, MN tree stand deer hunt isn't much fun, my son has zero interest in it, but we are both super fired up about western hunting - we add it to our local grouse hunting and SD pheasant trips and Canadian fishing, the tradition grows. And some day when my kids are voters I don't see them persuaded by "what's WY's is WY's" - they are Americans and do not at all see themselves as Minnesotans or that being "from MN" limits their activities to MN.

 

[WapitiBob]

I appears that my income puts me at the "poverty" level but I manage to hunt out of state every year. It can be done.

 

[beginnerhunter]

As such, trying to place the blame of involvement, culture, and traditions being lost on States that charge you more as a NR, and/or limit tags to NR to hunt is just flawed logic. Even more flawed to connect the public lands issues and lack of support because WY, MT, ID, NM, AZ, UT, NE, MS, MO, FL,KS, etc. etc....charge NR hunters more than their Residents. When I advocate for public lands, the litmus test is not based on whether I can get a cheap tag in UT, or AZ, WA, or FL...its not even whether I not I can hunt at all. Their are values, wayyyy more important than hunting in regard to public lands...you know, things like clean air, clean water, species diversity...and other nonsensical life necessities. To tie the argument to one small sliver (hunting) of what public lands are, do, represent, and afford us, is just lame...and I'm having to be real polite just calling it lame.

The focus needs to be in the States people live in for culture, tradition, and involvement, because the reality is, that no matter how much anyone argues otherwise, hunting as a NR is a luxury, period.

I think another thing to consider, is that there is no way to set the bar low enough in NR price to make sure that nobody is excluded.

You're the preacher and VikingsGuy and I are in the choir.

Joe Blow Whitetail Hunter in BFE Alabama probably doesn't give much thought to clean air/water, just takes it for granted. But he might care about public lands in the west if he got to hunt them. If he can't, why not sell it off to
the private industry that his GOP is always fluffing? Alabama is < 3% federally owned, he won't miss it.

I mean, you're right and there's probably nothing to be done about it. But it's naive to think paycheck to paycheck Joe Blow Redneck is going to care about public land policy in the west for the sake of clean air, species diversity, etc.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Let's not pretend everybody used to hunt all over the US in the "good old days", and now they can't afford it. Unless I'm mistaken, hunting multiple states and species is a relatively new phenomenon that the "average" hunter, whatever that means, never would have considered until the last couple of decades.

There is no free lunch. It's often argued that emphasizing accessibility and low cost is worth it in the name of hunter recruitment, buy-in from non locals, etc. But it could also be argued that making anything of value (like a Wyoming deer tag) more accessible and less expensive cheapens the value of the resource, and is a net negative in the long run.

If I'm not mistaken, the "let's sell the federal land" movement is relatively new. Prior to that, NR/Easterner support wasn't necessary. Of course, the GOP is probably on the outs for the next few cycles so my argument is moot anyway.

 

[BuzzH]

You're the preacher and VikingsGuy and I are in the choir.

Joe Blow Whitetail Hunter in BFE Alabama probably doesn't give much thought to clean air/water, just takes it for granted. But he might care about public lands in the west if he got to hunt them. If he can't, why not sell it off to
the private industry that his GOP is always fluffing? Alabama is < 3% federally owned, he won't miss it.

I mean, you're right and there's probably nothing to be done about it. But it's naive to think paycheck to paycheck Joe Blow Redneck is going to care about public land policy in the west for the sake of clean air, species diversity, etc.

I wont apologize for being unwilling to lower the value of my wildlife so that a low-information Alabama voter will continue to vote "R", even if given the chance to hunt my public lands and wildlife. The reason for their R vote is rooted in "tradition and culture" that far out-strips the possibility of any change influencing their decision by my State allowing them to hunt on the cheap...and that's just a fact. The dog-whistle "issues" hold their vote hostage, and my public lands aren't going to loosen the grip of that strangle-hold one bit. See it time and time again.

If they're going to continue to work against me behind my back, I have no problem taking their tag money up front.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I appears that my income puts me at the "poverty" level but I manage to hunt out of state every year. It can be done.

Certainly can be done, but doesn't mean all can. The most committed can do almost anything, I just think sometimes it is good to make room for the interested but not yet rabid amongst us.

There are great things about the current model, but there are some crappy things too, I am not sure why the status quo is so rigorously defended on this site - maybe it is just the nature of the demographics.

 

[BuzzH]

I appears that my income puts me at the "poverty" level but I manage to hunt out of state every year. It can be done.

I think people would be shocked how many are in this exact boat.

I can almost be assured, I could find the money it takes to hunt out of State in about any family budget by for-going a handful of non-essential purchases. For Christ sake, I paid for an Alaska Dall Sheep hunt by playing a seasonal Pulaski motor.

Save $25 a month and shovel your neighbors sidewalk or mow their grass...you can hunt out West.

Exactly why I don't believe we're even close to pricing out the "average guy"...most of us are just that.

 

[BuzzH]

Certainly can be done, but doesn't mean all can. The most committed can do almost anything, I just think sometimes it is good to make room for the interested but not yet rabid amongst us.

Sounds rather socialist...

Maybe we should lower the price of a Porsche so I can buy one, or lower the green monster in Fenway because I cant pop the ball over it that easily (if at all anymore). Sure would like to live in a 5 million dollar home and own a 10K acre ranch with elk, mule deer and pronghorn on it...if only they would just lower the price to 300K.

Oh, and by the way, if they don't do all of those things for me, I'll not advocate for public lands.

 

[beginnerhunter]

I'm more interested in the outcomes. I don't really care what motivates someone. If someone supports federal management of public land because they are a socialist or a nudist (GoHunt episode) or whatever it doesn't really matter to me.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Sounds rather socialist...

Now that is truly a first - I am going to print it out and show it to all my friends,

Maybe we should lower the price of a Porsche so I can buy one

Does WY manage a fleet of Porsche on federal land under "trust for the people"? If so I definitely need to move there.

 

[BuzzH]

Here's what I know...the problem with a lack of public land advocates is not because of NR tag fees, and the problem cant be solved with any state lowering their NR hunting and fishing license fees.

Those are facts.

Anyone stating otherwise is just looking for cheaper tag fees.

If the solution to the problem was that easy, I'd give WY tags away.

 

[BuzzH]

Now that is truly a first - I am going to print it out and show it to all my friends,




Does WY manage a fleet of Porsche on federal land under "trust for the people"? If so I definitely need to move there.

If they did, it wouldn't be the same price for R and NR Porsche's...they would be held in trust for the citizens of the State. I'd guess you wouldn't get one at all as a NR.

If you want the cheap Porsche, the only way you're ever going to get it...is to move. That's the most sense you've made yet...just be prepared to pay the Rocky Mountain Premium for that cheap Porsche.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If they did, it wouldn't be the same price for R and NR Porsche's...they would be held in trust for the citizens of the State. I'd guess you wouldn't get one at all as a NR.

If you want the cheap Porsche, the only way you're ever going to get it...is to move. That's the most sense you've made yet...just be prepared to pay the Rocky Mountain Premium for that cheap Porsche.

If my kids were a little older, the winters in WY a little warmer and the stock market a little better I'd be there by spring. But for now I will just have to live with under market priced tags to great public lands hunting. (note that I have not said WY is over-priced, just that overall mountain west tag systems are a pain and a barrier - price complexity etc.)

 

[BlakeA]

I'm going to make a wild, crazy prediction. The number of applications from NR's for Elk, Deer, and Antelope in Wyoming this year will be higher than last year. Just like the year before....and before....and before....and before....and before....