174in
Well-known member
So I was reading my eastman magazine and saw Wyoming is planing on increasing the tags so I did some reasearsh online and it sounds like a 21% increase across the board putting prices right up there with montana or higher.
Wyoming tag fee increase
- Thread starter 174in
- Start date
ihuntelk
Member
WGFD is accepting comments til Oct 24. I'll try and post a couple links in the morn when I'm at a computer and not on this stupid phone!
- Cade
- Cade
174in
Well-known member
Sent in my comment. I understand there is inflation but my god $370.00 for a pronghorn tag?That dosnt even inclued the pref point yet.
ihuntelk
Member
Here's the link to their "Financial Status" page.
http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wgfd-1000880.aspx
Here's the link to submit comments.
http://gf.state.wy.us/WGFD_WebSurvey/CommentOnly.aspx
If they're not smart enough to see how bad Idaho and Montana are hurting after a big fee increase, then there really is no hope.......................:hump:
-Cade
www.HuntForeverWest.com
http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wgfd-1000880.aspx
Here's the link to submit comments.
http://gf.state.wy.us/WGFD_WebSurvey/CommentOnly.aspx
If they're not smart enough to see how bad Idaho and Montana are hurting after a big fee increase, then there really is no hope.......................:hump:
-Cade
www.HuntForeverWest.com
I don't know...$660 for a pronghorn tag in the special draw seems reasonable. 
And deer and elk are only $810 and $1330.
I'll admit that when MT raised their prices a couple of years ago, I still thought they would easily sell them out. I'm surprised that there are stil tags available this year. Idaho has also discovered that you can't just keep raising fees without regard to the value of the product. It will be interesting to see how the proposed increases in WY will affect draw odds. Funding of game and fish departments is a big issue that will be coming to a head in the next few years, I believe, as the powers that be realize that hunters don't have endlessly deep pockets to tap.
And deer and elk are only $810 and $1330.I'll admit that when MT raised their prices a couple of years ago, I still thought they would easily sell them out. I'm surprised that there are stil tags available this year. Idaho has also discovered that you can't just keep raising fees without regard to the value of the product. It will be interesting to see how the proposed increases in WY will affect draw odds. Funding of game and fish departments is a big issue that will be coming to a head in the next few years, I believe, as the powers that be realize that hunters don't have endlessly deep pockets to tap.
npaden
Well-known member
It will be interesting how this ends up shaking out. Wyoming has always been the first to draw for nonresident elk tags and has very strict policies on turning a tag back in. But it was pretty easy to draw a general tag to have in your pocket if all the other draws turned out bad.
Now you don't even have to bother messing with the draws to have your safety elk tag, you have Montana to fall back on with leftover tags available right up until the season opens. And that's not even talking about Colorado where it has always been a quantity over quality tag, but wait a second, some really nice bulls have been coming out of Colorado lately on over the counter tags. Their quality is increasing pretty steadily and they are still about the cheapest tag as well.
There will always be some folks with money to burn, but the "average" guy just isn't going to have that kind of money to throw at a tag every year, especially if the quality isn't there to go with it.
Everyone is all over SFW and the auction tag stuff, but the western fish and game commissions are doing about as good of a job pricing the average joe out of the nonresident tag game as anyone. It all comes down to who is doing the voting and the nonresident nonguided hunters do not get a vote. New Mexico showed that last year.
For all of Jose's MYpublicLands talk, it is becoming harder and harder to afford to buy the tag and make the trip to hunt those public lands.
Now you don't even have to bother messing with the draws to have your safety elk tag, you have Montana to fall back on with leftover tags available right up until the season opens. And that's not even talking about Colorado where it has always been a quantity over quality tag, but wait a second, some really nice bulls have been coming out of Colorado lately on over the counter tags. Their quality is increasing pretty steadily and they are still about the cheapest tag as well.
There will always be some folks with money to burn, but the "average" guy just isn't going to have that kind of money to throw at a tag every year, especially if the quality isn't there to go with it.
Everyone is all over SFW and the auction tag stuff, but the western fish and game commissions are doing about as good of a job pricing the average joe out of the nonresident tag game as anyone. It all comes down to who is doing the voting and the nonresident nonguided hunters do not get a vote. New Mexico showed that last year.
For all of Jose's MYpublicLands talk, it is becoming harder and harder to afford to buy the tag and make the trip to hunt those public lands.
npaden
Well-known member
P.S. - The public comments link doesn't work anymore. I guess they are getting tired of hearing about it so they just stopped taking comments. The link is still there on the "financial status" page linked above, but when you click on it, it just takes you on an endless loop to nowhere.
For what it's worth, a lot of average hunters don't leave their own state. Can't afford to no matter what the price of the tag is.
It's interesting, Sportsmen are the first to jump up and claim that they pay for all wildlife management, but when it comes time to pony up, they're the first in line complaining about it.
All western agencies have the same problem. The funding source (us) is finite and their duties continue to grow. Unless people are willing to pony up the extra 20% or so, or willing to let other stakeholders to the table through new funding sources, we'll continue to see rising tag prices.
Some groups like SFW will use this as an excuse to increase auction tags, etc. Others will advocate non-consumptive users pay their freight.
So which is it? Commercialize wildlife, or let others start carrying some water?
This is a thorny issue to be sure. Wildlife agencies have been wrestling for decades to figure out how to tap "non-consumptive users." I remember when there was an attempt to put a Pittman-Robertson-like tax on canoes, binoculars and the like, and the non-hunters shot down that idea big time. Also, some hunters jealously guard their status as "the ones who pay the freight." If anyone ever does determine how to secure contributions from non-hunters and non-anglers, the political situation also will change.
Thus, I don't have a good answer to a very real problem.
Thus, I don't have a good answer to a very real problem.
npaden
Well-known member
One side note to throw in is that Wyoming actually seems to charge their residents a fair price for their hunting licenses.
Currently Wyoming charges residents $50 for an elk tag and nonresidents $575. They are proposing going to $75 for residents and $750 for nonresidents.
Pretty drastic difference from Montana with the resident tag at $20 and nonresident tag at $900.
As far as non-consumptive users, I have always thought that they should have to buy a conservation license just like the hunters do. If you are using public lands, you need to buy one. Period.
P.S.S. - I'm not really bitching about the price increase. In fact, it will probably end up being in my best interest because I can afford the price increase and it will most likely improve my drawing odds. I think the logic that the marketing firm used to come up with the price increases is flawed though when they say that the increased price will not affect license sales.
Currently Wyoming charges residents $50 for an elk tag and nonresidents $575. They are proposing going to $75 for residents and $750 for nonresidents.
Pretty drastic difference from Montana with the resident tag at $20 and nonresident tag at $900.
As far as non-consumptive users, I have always thought that they should have to buy a conservation license just like the hunters do. If you are using public lands, you need to buy one. Period.
P.S.S. - I'm not really bitching about the price increase. In fact, it will probably end up being in my best interest because I can afford the price increase and it will most likely improve my drawing odds. I think the logic that the marketing firm used to come up with the price increases is flawed though when they say that the increased price will not affect license sales.
putm2sleep
New member
Nothing is fair. My opinion.
So. Let's problem solve : if I put on the ol' Obama hat on here, let's make the top 3% of hunting outdoorsmen pick up the tab for everyone! We can inpire 75k more new hunters without raising fees on the middle class hunter and tag prices will stay relatively flat all hunters while the deficit of tags is reduced further.
So. Let's problem solve : if I put on the ol' Obama hat on here, let's make the top 3% of hunting outdoorsmen pick up the tab for everyone! We can inpire 75k more new hunters without raising fees on the middle class hunter and tag prices will stay relatively flat all hunters while the deficit of tags is reduced further.
RUT JUNKEY
Well-known member
This is a tough one. I see both sides to it, as I am a non-resident everywhere but Indiana. I just returned on Sat from a Wyoming Antelope hunt and it was a ton of fun! ( hope to go every year) I don't think that the powers that be are seeing how much money we spend while we are out there hunting besides the tags themselves. We tagged out ( 3 bucks) before noon on Monday and spent the rest of the week traveling all over the state, it was great and we had a ball. I worry about some of the guys who wont be able to afford to go if there is an increase. In Colorado (years ago) they increased their tags for Elk from $325.50 to $525 or something like that, and alot of the people couldnt pull that off, so we quit going. I hear them whine about the over population of Elk and even talk about bringing in the wolves. . .how about lowering the price a tad. ( me stepping down from soapbox). nothing against anyone from Colorado ( I love it there)
We've also got some items like tree-stands, etc, that do not fall under PR/DJ funds. Those items could increase revenue for conservation. I'm shocked and disappointed that large retailers like REI shot down the excise tax on outdoor gear, but I also think that there are state solutions that could work better.
Some states have modified their sales tax so that a portion of that goes to wildlife conservation. The key to any alternative funding it to make sure that political influence in the appropriations process doesn't hamper the scientific management of the resource. That's why we set up license systems the way we did - to empower the people, and keep power from being centralized and politicized. It worked for almost 100 years, but now people have decided that wildlife agencies should do more than just manage bucks, bulls and game species.
Groups like SFW use fiscal issues to advocate for more auction tags, reducing hunter opportunity for their own pocketbooks. Groups like Defenders and Sierra Club don't care about state funding very much, so they don't get involved in the issues. Those members get away without any skin in the game and think everyone else should pay their frieght.
So, to use the political analogy - SFW is more like Obama, and the Sierra Club is like Romney.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I believe think increasing fees on both R and NR's simply must happen.
I am NOT in favor of any increases in commissionor/governors tags to increase funding.
I am in favor of increasing funding via non-consumptive users, mainly through PR tax on outdoor items not currently taxed.
I am 100% in favor of increasing NR and R fees, with a higher percentage increase on Residents. I've always believed that Resident hunters have cut a fat hog in the ass with the cheapie fees they pay.
As to the whining about increasing fees, get over it.
Its tough for me to listen to whining when I see trailers loaded with fuggin' ATV's, Rhinos, Razors...being pulled with 35-40K trucks. Those same guys jump off the atv's glassing with Leica, Swarovski, binos and spotters. They typically arent shooting grandpappies dirty ought six with a K-4 weaver either. Rarely do a see these guys decked out in anything other than the latest camo clothing.
Yet...when they're swillin' $4 beers after the hunt in the local gin mill...they cant help but bitch about the "cost" of the license fees.
It gets old.
If the fees increase, which I'm sure they will, I dont believe that there are many hunters that bought licenses this year in Wyoming that couldnt do without something in a years time to come up with the difference.
Example:
I killed a lot of game while using $200 leupold binoculars and a $500 leupold spotting scope.
I sure as hell dont "need" nearly 4K in glass to have a successful hunt...I could buy 10 years worth of NR antelope tags in Wyoming for that...and I would do without the glass if it came down to affording one or the other.
I am NOT in favor of any increases in commissionor/governors tags to increase funding.
I am in favor of increasing funding via non-consumptive users, mainly through PR tax on outdoor items not currently taxed.
I am 100% in favor of increasing NR and R fees, with a higher percentage increase on Residents. I've always believed that Resident hunters have cut a fat hog in the ass with the cheapie fees they pay.
As to the whining about increasing fees, get over it.
Its tough for me to listen to whining when I see trailers loaded with fuggin' ATV's, Rhinos, Razors...being pulled with 35-40K trucks. Those same guys jump off the atv's glassing with Leica, Swarovski, binos and spotters. They typically arent shooting grandpappies dirty ought six with a K-4 weaver either. Rarely do a see these guys decked out in anything other than the latest camo clothing.
Yet...when they're swillin' $4 beers after the hunt in the local gin mill...they cant help but bitch about the "cost" of the license fees.
It gets old.
If the fees increase, which I'm sure they will, I dont believe that there are many hunters that bought licenses this year in Wyoming that couldnt do without something in a years time to come up with the difference.
Example:
I killed a lot of game while using $200 leupold binoculars and a $500 leupold spotting scope.
I sure as hell dont "need" nearly 4K in glass to have a successful hunt...I could buy 10 years worth of NR antelope tags in Wyoming for that...and I would do without the glass if it came down to affording one or the other.
The issue is not necessarily whether someone can afford it, but whether the product is worth the cost. If the perception of non-residents is that a pronghorn tag is not worth $370, it doesn't matter whether they can afford it or not. Why does Idaho still have thousands of unsold non-resident deer and elk tags right now, that used to sell out quickly after sales opened? Why does MT still have unsold tags that were not guaranteed in the draw in the past? Maybe the WY G&F can just send letters to non-residents telling them to "get over it" if they can't sell all of their tags.
FWIW, I don't believe WY will suffer lost tag sales as badly as MT and Idaho have. But it will be interesting to see how much revenue is lost due to "special" tag quotas being filled in the regular and resident draws. Maybe the amount will be negligible.
I do believe it is time to look at ways for "non-consumptive" users to foot some of the bill. I'm not sure which is the correct solution.
I'm not whining, and I will continue to apply in Wyoming, because it is worth it to me. But I might stop picking up 2nd choice deer tags (I've had 4 in the last 7 years) if the price increases to more than what the tag is worth to me. There are other options out there that are much cheaper if I want an extra tag or two. I'm sure they will sell my tag to someone.
Here's what Idaho has left for non-resident tags:
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/licenses/?getPage=75
FWIW, I don't believe WY will suffer lost tag sales as badly as MT and Idaho have. But it will be interesting to see how much revenue is lost due to "special" tag quotas being filled in the regular and resident draws. Maybe the amount will be negligible.
I do believe it is time to look at ways for "non-consumptive" users to foot some of the bill. I'm not sure which is the correct solution.
I'm not whining, and I will continue to apply in Wyoming, because it is worth it to me. But I might stop picking up 2nd choice deer tags (I've had 4 in the last 7 years) if the price increases to more than what the tag is worth to me. There are other options out there that are much cheaper if I want an extra tag or two. I'm sure they will sell my tag to someone.
Here's what Idaho has left for non-resident tags:
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/licenses/?getPage=75
fowladdict
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,561
Cool...looks like I am not going to have any problems getting a second tag (whitetail).
That's a good point. Maybe WY can look at selling residents their 2nd deer, elk and pronghorn tags at non-resident prices if tag sales drop. Idaho residents seem willing to pony up for the opportunity to hunt a second animal. That would help make up some of the shortfall.
BuzzH
Well-known member
They're already considering splitting whitetail buck and mule deer buck tags for residents...so each resident could buy and hunt one of each species.
Last edited:
npaden
Well-known member
http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/licenses/nowAvailable.html
As of today 493 Big Game combos, 1,814 elk combos and the shocker, 1,347 deer combos available with one week to go before the season opens for Montana.
The shocker being the deer combos available. That used to be about a 20% draw chance. Now they have over 1,000 left with a week to go before the season.
As of today 493 Big Game combos, 1,814 elk combos and the shocker, 1,347 deer combos available with one week to go before the season opens for Montana.
The shocker being the deer combos available. That used to be about a 20% draw chance. Now they have over 1,000 left with a week to go before the season.
