MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Wyoming > Hicks at it again

Just my quick thoughts.
I hate the part about the guide draw.
I like the way Wyoming has it set up now with a special/ regular draw.
Raising tag cost and cutting quotas seems like the things to do right now. I wouldn’t mind the increase in the cost if quotas were left the same.
hunting out west is a cool thing to do right now so I guess the states have to capitalize while they can. I do think we will eventually hit a point where it’s just not worth it. It’ll be very unfortunate when that happens. I just don’t want to hear any bitching about Hunter recruitment and retainment.

I just don’t understand the desire to cut tag quotas and take another 30% off the that. I look at it as they are reducing antelope tags 40% elk tags 36%.
I am not going to Worry about the moose, bison, or sheep tags I will never draw those and even if I did I wouldn’t be able to afford them.

No, pronghorn tags would not likely see any appreciable reduction looking at it from a total tag standpoint. It would shift only 10% of the tags out of the original NR application pool. The only thing this will change is some of the better units will see better odds for Residents, but that also leaves more tags in the mid-tier units that residents normally would draw to shift into the NR pool. Remember, any tags the Residents don't draw in the initial draw, drop to the NR pool. It would be more of a "shift" than a reduction in regard to pronghorn. NR's already draw more pronghorn tags than residents, and that wouldn't change under a 90-10 split.

As to elk, same thing. Statutorily NR's receive 7,250 full price elk tags. Again, there would just be a shift from 16% to 10%, but the difference in LQ tags would be made up by issuing more general tags to meet the 7,250 cap.

So, there is no way that NR elk and pronghorn tags are going to be cut by 40% and 36%...mathematically impossible.

In both cases, under this ridiculous bill, there would be 30% of the tags that were only available through an outfitter set aside. Which, makes no sense and why this bill is going to flop and never get anywhere.
 
I agree completely that the rising cost is shifting the hunting demographic to the right of the curve. But, additionally, this bill cuts nr tags in half, from 20 to 10% of the quota. That results in less nr hunters visiting wyo; buying fuel, food, logging, beer, propane, etc.

Nope, it doesn't split total tags in half...read my post above.

Like most NR hunters, you don't understand how the draw is currently working.
 
I know I'm alone here but I really hate the rich guy argument or it will price me out rhetoric. Many of my friends that are always complaining what a tag costs or what the hunt expenses are gonna be are the ones that own $2500 of Sitka or Kuiu clothing. Heck I have a friend he's gonna see this, he got a closet hanging full of sitka & Kuiu and first lite jackets hell he hasn't even wore yet! I am totally serious. You will spend you money on whats important to you and thank god you can in this free country we live in.
Its your choice. If your not hunting or fishing in your back yard it becomes expensive and everyone has a different budget or idea what they wanna spend their money on. Just go Tuna fishing OYO with friends and put $1000 to $1500 of fuel in the boat for a overnighter run 120 miles offshore in the dark and holy crap there are 500 boats in a few square miles! Things are not what they used to be so we just gotta make the best of what we got. To many dam people
 
The problem with stating that peripherals are taking a hit is that its not true. Dispite the rising costs in almost all western states you dont see many tags or seasons under subscribed. The tags are being sold and hunters are hunting and spending money on goods and services

The difference is that if we look at all potential tag buyers and chart them on a bell curve based on their economic means to pay, we keep shifting a little more each year to high side. Right now there are plenty of us on the higher side of the curve to fill all the demand , so on the surface the price increases seem benign. Where we will run into issues ( i would argue that its been happening years) is that the majority of wealth is shiftimg futher to the right of the curve as well. So what does that mean? As more and more of the hunting opportunitys are shifted to less and less hunters we erode our base, those hunters that afford it drop out and dont come back. Unfortunately I see this tread continuing and being embraced by plenty of our own ranks. We are happy to pay more for exclusivity, we are here now we have the money, why not get the "best " experience we can right now. And that will be our demise.

That's a solid assessment and consistent with most things in this world; more opportunities will exist for those with more wealth.
 
At face value, and perhaps selfishly, I wouldn't mind a change to the LQ split, more general licenses, and one slightly higher fee. The elimination of the special draw would probably save many a lot of unnecessary time being indecisive about which to apply for, including myself.
 
No, pronghorn tags would not likely see any appreciable reduction looking at it from a total tag standpoint. It would shift only 10% of the tags out of the original NR application pool. The only thing this will change is some of the better units will see better odds for Residents, but that also leaves more tags in the mid-tier units that residents normally would draw to shift into the NR pool. Remember, any tags the Residents don't draw in the initial draw, drop to the NR pool. It would be more of a "shift" than a reduction in regard to pronghorn. NR's already draw more pronghorn tags than residents, and that wouldn't change under a 90-10 split.

As to elk, same thing. Statutorily NR's receive 7,250 full price elk tags. Again, there would just be a shift from 16% to 10%, but the difference in LQ tags would be made up by issuing more general tags to meet the 7,250 cap.

So, there is no way that NR elk and pronghorn tags are going to be cut by 40% and 36%...mathematically impossible.

In both cases, under this ridiculous bill, there would be 30% of the tags that were only available through an outfitter set aside. Which, makes no sense and why this bill is going to flop and never get anywhere.
I hope you’re right about this bill not going anywhere. I’m sure you have a much better vibe on it and I do.
But let me ask you this. If the tag quota would be moved down to 10% for unit A leaving only 100 tags available. Would the the outfitter 30% come out then leaving only 70 tags or does it come from somewhere else?
 
No, pronghorn tags would not likely see any appreciable reduction looking at it from a total tag standpoint. It would shift only 10% of the tags out of the original NR application pool. The only thing this will change is some of the better units will see better odds for Residents, but that also leaves more tags in the mid-tier units that residents normally would draw to shift into the NR pool. Remember, any tags the Residents don't draw in the initial draw, drop to the NR pool. It would be more of a "shift" than a reduction in regard to pronghorn. NR's already draw more pronghorn tags than residents, and that wouldn't change under a 90-10 split.

As to elk, same thing. Statutorily NR's receive 7,250 full price elk tags. Again, there would just be a shift from 16% to 10%, but the difference in LQ tags would be made up by issuing more general tags to meet the 7,250 cap.

So, there is no way that NR elk and pronghorn tags are going to be cut by 40% and 36%...mathematically impossible.

In both cases, under this ridiculous bill, there would be 30% of the tags that were only available through an outfitter set aside. Which, makes no sense and why this bill is going to flop and never get anywhere.
Thanks for the reminder, Buzz. The 7,250 cap is something that I always forget about.
 
No, pronghorn tags would not likely see any appreciable reduction looking at it from a total tag standpoint. It would shift only 10% of the tags out of the original NR application pool. The only thing this will change is some of the better units will see better odds for Residents, but that also leaves more tags in the mid-tier units that residents normally would draw to shift into the NR pool. Remember, any tags the Residents don't draw in the initial draw, drop to the NR pool. It would be more of a "shift" than a reduction in regard to pronghorn. NR's already draw more pronghorn tags than residents, and that wouldn't change under a 90-10 split.

As to elk, same thing. Statutorily NR's receive 7,250 full price elk tags. Again, there would just be a shift from 16% to 10%, but the difference in LQ tags would be made up by issuing more general tags to meet the 7,250 cap.

So, there is no way that NR elk and pronghorn tags are going to be cut by 40% and 36%...mathematically impossible.

In both cases, under this ridiculous bill, there would be 30% of the tags that were only available through an outfitter set aside. Which, makes no sense and why this bill is going to flop and never get anywhere.
In my opinion Wyoming currently has some great general tag elk hunts. By moving more tags available into the general will Wyoming be placing to much pressure on those areas? Maybe having to adjust numbers down the road or would it simply become more of an opportunity hunt as opposed to a more quality hunt which I believe it is currently.
 
I hope you’re right about this bill not going anywhere. I’m sure you have a much better vibe on it and I do.
But let me ask you this. If the tag quota would be moved down to 10% for unit A leaving only 100 tags available. Would the the outfitter 30% come out then leaving only 70 tags or does it come from somewhere else?
The 30% would come out of the NR quota.
 
In my opinion Wyoming currently has some great general tag elk hunts. By moving more tags available into the general will Wyoming be placing to much pressure on those areas? Maybe having to adjust numbers down the road or would it simply become more of an opportunity hunt as opposed to a more quality hunt which I believe it is currently.
There would be an additional 6% of LQ tags to residents, who then would not be hunting general. It might just shift the percent of residents to NR in general areas.
 
Pretty soon your gonna need a guide to fish in Wyoming. Heck maybe 50 years from now "Ill be dead anyway" you will need to get your hunt Itinerary approved before you can do a trip by some government hunting board. Then some of the now/current 20 year olds will be saying remember the good old days when all you had to do was draw a tag!
 
The sickening thing is if mature male animals had no protrusions on their heads, anyone could draw any tag anywhere and these issues would never come up.
 
Just to many dam people so much marketing calling them to action they are invading the mountains and deserts and rivers everywhere!
 
I hope you’re right about this bill not going anywhere. I’m sure you have a much better vibe on it and I do.
But let me ask you this. If the tag quota would be moved down to 10% for unit A leaving only 100 tags available. Would the the outfitter 30% come out then leaving only 70 tags or does it come from somewhere else?

Yes
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,561
Messages
2,025,132
Members
36,229
Latest member
jimmbo
Back
Top