Wyoming > Hicks at it again
- Thread starter 88man
- Start date
rmyoung1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,409
Yeah. Please... no.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
Everything seems reasonable except the proposed 30% allocation of NR tags to outfitted hunters. WY outfitters have already positioned themselves in a terrible parasitic role, and this would only make that worse.
A certain % of hunters are always going to chose to go guided, so why not let market dictate how much business the outfitters are going to get? It makes no sense to me why any state/province would want to legislate away self-guided hunting.
A certain % of hunters are always going to chose to go guided, so why not let market dictate how much business the outfitters are going to get? It makes no sense to me why any state/province would want to legislate away self-guided hunting.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
NR tag fee increases without corresponding res fee increases is unreasonable. Outfitter allocation is unreasonable. NR allocation change for species that res hunters can buy over the counter (deer and elk) is unnecessary. IMO
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Everything seems reasonable... What kind of crack cocaine are you smoking? That's the single worst bill I've ever seen drafted, being a non-resident DIY hunter that enjoys visits to Wyoming, including to the Senator's house that apparently wrote that. Here - let's bend the non-residents over. How? Let's jack up all their prices, reduce and eliminate some of their permits, and give 1/3 of the non-residents licenses to those who will hire an outfitter.
rmyoung1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,409
Don’t forget about continuing to shut NR hunters out of the wilderness. Sheesh. Wyoming goes from a NR-friendly elk destination to the Oregon-look-alike if that thing goes through. Maybe that’s the sponsor’s intent. I dunno.
Last edited:
rmyoung1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,409
I agree with this. Never understood it.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
I could care less about that, and honestly sick of hearing people whine about it.
rmyoung1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,409
Understandable. Just suggesting that all the wilderness units are essentially in an outfitter tag pool already. Expanding the outfitter hand-out would be a bummer
jryoung
Well-known member
I hope on markup they add that outfitters must provide a minimum of 600 thread count sheets, hypo-allergenic down pillows, American Whiskey's (none of that Canadian, Scottish or Japanese bullshit), and a diverse selection of cigars.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
First, that is not true. Second, the state can create whatever unit boundaries they choose and how to allocate who can hunt them.
If I'm reading this bill right, the 30% piece... any idea what that will do the non-resident license draw odds for those going unguided? Yeah, at least now, you can draw H, hunt the forest, find a friend from WY to go with, after this, you won't have a license but every 10-15 years.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
I am not in favor of the proposed bill, even if the 30% outfitter requirement were to be removed. Selfishly, I'd love if NR WY hunting didn't get more expensive and more competitive over time. But a preference for me is different from potentially reasonable ideas for other stakeholders.
When the tag and application prices go up, it can slow point creep for the persons who are still able to afford the tags. It's a win-lose, and not a lose-lose. Case in point: I don't apply in AZ b/c of the high price just to get an elk point. Otherwise, I probably would. A CO elk point is like $80, so a better buy in my book.
I'm an unabashed WY fan. I think they have the best all-around deal for elk and antelope of any state. Their fishing is superb. I'll continue to give them my $$ until/unless I get priced out of the game. I think WY takes a lot of actions that are counterproductive to their own economic benefit such as preventing public access to the highest percentage and highest acreage of public land of any state, a NR total elk license cap that is probably too low, governor/commissioner tags which erode some semblance of a democratic/egalitarian image, giving the WY G&F credit card vendor millions instead of keeping that money and those jobs within the state, and requiring wilderness guides for big game hunting.
WY has every right to jack the NR prices as high as they want, to try and find the way to make the most money for themselves. Shoot, MT is a lot more expensive for elk with far lower success rates, and they sell close to 100% of their licenses. If they we're so bent on pushing all the elk off public with long, consecutive hunting seasons, they could issue more NR tags and make even more money.
The national economy is very robust right now. Millions of hunters have significant discretionary $$ to allocate to hunting, but where will that $$ go? States are licking their chops and want to capitalize on this influx in the short term. Expect changes from most states over the next couple of years. Some may overshoot and get too greedy, and will find out once the economy cools.
As you mentioned, the proposal dramatically reduces many of the most premium hunts for NRs in favor of giving residents all these hunt opportunities. I think it's a bad gamble for WY and would backfire, but if they want to role the dice and see if this works for them, then it's their call.
As an aside, I don't smoke crack.
And there are possibly some worse legislative bills out there, if you nose around enough
The Most Ridiculous Proposed Laws In History
In the face of the spectacular collapse of the "repeal and reform" of Obamacare, it may comfort people of a Republican persuasion (and also anybody who likes a bit of schadenfreude) to know that spectacularly failed laws and bills that don't pass…
Schaaf
Well-known member
BuzzH
Well-known member
Before this gets too far out in the weeds, I heard about this bill quite some time ago.
Jeff (JM77) and I had a long talk with the guy that is going to push and promote this bill several months ago. In our conversation with Rob Shaul, we made it pretty clear about several things. One of them was that any bill you introduce to reduce NR tags has got to be revenue neutral to the GF department. That's where I'm guessing the NR fee increase is coming from. He also told us that he felt he had to have the support of the outfitters on any reduction in LQ tag allocations. I don't think that's the case, but he does. That's where the 30% allocation to outfitters is coming from.
At a roundtable meeting a few weeks back, the WOGA asked all those at the roundtable to oppose this bill as they know that they're going to be taking heat over it due to the outfitter allocation. The 3 WOGA representatives made it clear the outfitter allocation was not their idea. I'm going to take that at face value and believe them at this point. If I don't see some massive pressure put on by them opposing this bill in committee, well, then I'll call them out on it then. But, I'm comfortable at this point and will take their word that they will aggressively oppose.
Don't forget either that this a budget session and any bill that comes out of committee has to pass by 2/3 of the legislature.
I don't see that happening, but I've been wrong before. I also believe that Rob Shaul and the 90-10 allocation is not going to go away and support for it will likely ramp up if anything. The one thing Shaul does realize is the fact it often times takes years to get these kind of changes through.
If I were a NR that had been putting off applying with lots of points, I would probably start giving some serious thoughts to burning them within the next 2-5 years as I don't see a way around the allocations changing. With the huge increases in NR hunting in surrounding States, I think Residents are going to want a bigger chunk of the tags for themselves.
I'll be actively opposing this bill as its written right now.
Jeff (JM77) and I had a long talk with the guy that is going to push and promote this bill several months ago. In our conversation with Rob Shaul, we made it pretty clear about several things. One of them was that any bill you introduce to reduce NR tags has got to be revenue neutral to the GF department. That's where I'm guessing the NR fee increase is coming from. He also told us that he felt he had to have the support of the outfitters on any reduction in LQ tag allocations. I don't think that's the case, but he does. That's where the 30% allocation to outfitters is coming from.
At a roundtable meeting a few weeks back, the WOGA asked all those at the roundtable to oppose this bill as they know that they're going to be taking heat over it due to the outfitter allocation. The 3 WOGA representatives made it clear the outfitter allocation was not their idea. I'm going to take that at face value and believe them at this point. If I don't see some massive pressure put on by them opposing this bill in committee, well, then I'll call them out on it then. But, I'm comfortable at this point and will take their word that they will aggressively oppose.
Don't forget either that this a budget session and any bill that comes out of committee has to pass by 2/3 of the legislature.
I don't see that happening, but I've been wrong before. I also believe that Rob Shaul and the 90-10 allocation is not going to go away and support for it will likely ramp up if anything. The one thing Shaul does realize is the fact it often times takes years to get these kind of changes through.
If I were a NR that had been putting off applying with lots of points, I would probably start giving some serious thoughts to burning them within the next 2-5 years as I don't see a way around the allocations changing. With the huge increases in NR hunting in surrounding States, I think Residents are going to want a bigger chunk of the tags for themselves.
I'll be actively opposing this bill as its written right now.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I totally agree with the bowsite part, those guys are well beyond self-serving on that site. Some of those guys would shove another hunter in front of a train if they thought it would get them another tag. Never seen greed like that in any other community of hunters anywhere.
Add in rabid mindless partisanship with healthy dose of pure ignorance and you got it....
