BuzzH
Well-known member
Considering all the bad things that have happened with deer/elk in Montana the last few years combined with some stupid laws...I'm surprised there arent more leftover tags.
Wyoming tag fee increase
- Thread starter 174in
- Start date
RUT JUNKEY
Well-known member
OAK, for me you hit the nail on the head. I too will continue to hunt Wyoming, but, it has to be worth it. I don't think people are "whining" about the prices it just seems to be the "quick fix" for everything and then the agencies can't understand why they have leftover tags. It's a vicious circle for sure. Whatever you do, don't come to Indiana and hunt. . .legally you can kill a buck and 8 does here in my county this year.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Not whining
Really?
I guess I missed your extensive list of solutions to increase revenue for the WYG&F shortfall...
You have a "quicker fix" in mind?
Just to throw this into the mix: Declining NR numbers more than likely are a function of the economy more than anything else. The declines happen when we enter the largest recession since the Great Depression. I doubt there were a lot of folks hunting in other states when that event was occurring.
You can't manage wildlife based on short term trends in the market for hunting licenses. You can make a plan, like our forefathers did over 100 years ago, to drive a sustainable model of wildlife management through visionary leadership and a good ground game.
I've got a bunch of old Wyoming Wildlife magazines from the 1930's through the 1990's. It's funny to read about hunting in Wyoming during WW2. Nobody was there to watch the game (wardens were all overseas) and hardly anyone was there to hunt, but the critters didn't mind at all. Seems like some of the larger increases in populations happen when we don't put so much pressure on them.
You can't manage wildlife based on short term trends in the market for hunting licenses. You can make a plan, like our forefathers did over 100 years ago, to drive a sustainable model of wildlife management through visionary leadership and a good ground game.
I've got a bunch of old Wyoming Wildlife magazines from the 1930's through the 1990's. It's funny to read about hunting in Wyoming during WW2. Nobody was there to watch the game (wardens were all overseas) and hardly anyone was there to hunt, but the critters didn't mind at all. Seems like some of the larger increases in populations happen when we don't put so much pressure on them.
ihuntelk
Member
I too am at a loss for how to solve this problem. I have seen first-hand how Western game depts are basically told they will manage non-game species as well. I don't see it getting much better for many of our western states with the Ranch-islatures we've got setting policy at the capitol. Utah (and Colorado) is a pime example of how the Ranchers are lining their pockets and the legislature will stick it to the Management agency every chance they get - sometimes rightfully so. Until the non-consumptive users start footing the bill, we're all in trouble.
A few of the thoughts I had for Wyo in my comments:
1) do away with the Wyoming Wildlife news publication. It is published on the MOST expensive paper alive and they are just giving it away free. Use Wyoming Wildlife magazine as your sounding board and either do away with the news publication or sell some ads and get it generating some money.
2) do away with WGFD's new "Call of the Wild" tv show. I've been involved with a couple shows and know how expensive they can be. With the sponsors this show has there is NO WAY they are even close to breaking even. They can't be making enough to pay for their air-time, not to mention production costs on top of that.
3) Wyo prints their hunting regulations about 3 different times. First, you get the Non-res and Resident hunting proclamations in January so you can apply in the limited quota hunts. The only problem is that the dates and quotas haven't been set yet. Second, you get the one-sided "red print" regs right after the commission approves their seasons. Map on one side, dates and quota on the other side. Third, they print an individual booklet for EVERY SPECIES in Wyo. Based on the regs I received this year, it looked like 2 printings of the same thing - one was a little bigger than the other.
I like how some states (Idaho) print their regs once and everything is all inclusive. Idaho even sells some ads in their regs to offset the cost. We all know the first pamphlet is the most expensive to print and yet Wyo thinks they should print it 3 times for fun and once for every species (Elk, deer, pronghorn, moose, sheep, goat, bear, lion, fur-bearer, wolf, early migratory birds, late migratory birds, upland birds and turkeys, etc.....). I would be a-ok with one set of regs for big-game, 1 for upland and 1 for migratory. Sell some ads and quit paying the printer 15 times when you can pay them 3.
4) Get rid of the pheasant rearing/stocking program. Just think how much the dept. could have spent on Long-term habitat projects in Wyo with half the money they've WASTED on planting wind-ups. I'm alright with using wind-ups for youth hunts, but not so someone from Cheyenne can try and have a pheasant hunt in the afternoon after they get off work. With all the birds having to be destroyed the last 2 years due to disease outbreak, it's time to put this program out of it's misery as well......
I'll stop there. I don't know if my suggestions will save the dept. 1 million a year, but it might. There are plenty of other 'programs' that could be trimmed as well. They need to do like the rest of us and trim some of the fat during these hard times. My rig has 330K miles, but it's paid for. I don't own a spotting scope - other than my 8th grader got braces today so I just bought her a Swaro to wear around in her mouth! I've cut my non-res apps in half although my wife doesn't believe me since I drew 2 Idaho tags this year!
All I'm saying is that it's tough right now and if they would look in the mirror a little bit, some of this damage would go away.
I'm alright with paying a little more for my resident tags. I've got a GOOD thing here in Wyo and it's worth paying for.
Just think about the 1000+ tags in Montana that are still on the shelf. What would that mean in revenue to the tourism in Montana?
Wyoming has a good thing going right now but I don't think they'll sell out if they gouge the non-res like has been proposed..........
Soapbox clear......
-Cade
www.HuntForeverWest.com
A few of the thoughts I had for Wyo in my comments:
1) do away with the Wyoming Wildlife news publication. It is published on the MOST expensive paper alive and they are just giving it away free. Use Wyoming Wildlife magazine as your sounding board and either do away with the news publication or sell some ads and get it generating some money.
2) do away with WGFD's new "Call of the Wild" tv show. I've been involved with a couple shows and know how expensive they can be. With the sponsors this show has there is NO WAY they are even close to breaking even. They can't be making enough to pay for their air-time, not to mention production costs on top of that.
3) Wyo prints their hunting regulations about 3 different times. First, you get the Non-res and Resident hunting proclamations in January so you can apply in the limited quota hunts. The only problem is that the dates and quotas haven't been set yet. Second, you get the one-sided "red print" regs right after the commission approves their seasons. Map on one side, dates and quota on the other side. Third, they print an individual booklet for EVERY SPECIES in Wyo. Based on the regs I received this year, it looked like 2 printings of the same thing - one was a little bigger than the other.
I like how some states (Idaho) print their regs once and everything is all inclusive. Idaho even sells some ads in their regs to offset the cost. We all know the first pamphlet is the most expensive to print and yet Wyo thinks they should print it 3 times for fun and once for every species (Elk, deer, pronghorn, moose, sheep, goat, bear, lion, fur-bearer, wolf, early migratory birds, late migratory birds, upland birds and turkeys, etc.....). I would be a-ok with one set of regs for big-game, 1 for upland and 1 for migratory. Sell some ads and quit paying the printer 15 times when you can pay them 3.
4) Get rid of the pheasant rearing/stocking program. Just think how much the dept. could have spent on Long-term habitat projects in Wyo with half the money they've WASTED on planting wind-ups. I'm alright with using wind-ups for youth hunts, but not so someone from Cheyenne can try and have a pheasant hunt in the afternoon after they get off work. With all the birds having to be destroyed the last 2 years due to disease outbreak, it's time to put this program out of it's misery as well......
I'll stop there. I don't know if my suggestions will save the dept. 1 million a year, but it might. There are plenty of other 'programs' that could be trimmed as well. They need to do like the rest of us and trim some of the fat during these hard times. My rig has 330K miles, but it's paid for. I don't own a spotting scope - other than my 8th grader got braces today so I just bought her a Swaro to wear around in her mouth! I've cut my non-res apps in half although my wife doesn't believe me since I drew 2 Idaho tags this year!
All I'm saying is that it's tough right now and if they would look in the mirror a little bit, some of this damage would go away.
I'm alright with paying a little more for my resident tags. I've got a GOOD thing here in Wyo and it's worth paying for.
Just think about the 1000+ tags in Montana that are still on the shelf. What would that mean in revenue to the tourism in Montana?
Wyoming has a good thing going right now but I don't think they'll sell out if they gouge the non-res like has been proposed..........
Soapbox clear......
-Cade
www.HuntForeverWest.com
174in
Well-known member
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
Oak is right on as far as I am concerned. And yes I will still hunt WY but I will have to make some adjustments like doing a little more trapping this fall to make up the cost differance. I probably not spend the money on a hotel the first night I arrive or the night before I go home anymore but instead camp more. I understand there is inflation I can see that in the increase in fuel prices when we go out there every year but 20% seems high. Buzz I understand how you see it as people crying.I like you can only cough up enough money for leupold products
but this high of a price increase hurts the pocket book. $300.00 seems more reasonable for an antelope tag to me. I dont mind a little price increase every now and then but to raise it $100.00 wow.
174in
Well-known member
The spliting of the deer tags sounds like a good idea to me.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I believe the intent is to offer a second buck whitetail license instead of allowing residents to just hunt most whitetail areas on a general tag.
A lot of units have an early general either species hunt followed by a whitetail only season later (also on a general tag). Under the new plan, hunters would use their general tag for the early hunt, then be required to buy a second whitetail specific tag for the whitetail only portion.
I think its a good idea as well.
I also think tiered special license fees for Residents is another thing that has merit. Double the resident fees on a portion of the available permits in the draws...all species. I also like the idea of higher non-refundable portions of all application fees whether you draw or not, in particular with trophy species like moose, sheep, and goat. Increasing the price on points only for residents to say...$50 for moose/sheep points.
Charging fishermen say an additional $5 for a second pole stamp instead of simply allowing them to use 2 poles is another source of income.
Theres lots of ways to raise revenue for the WYG&F, but the whining by sportsmen is non-stop when most anything is suggested that will cost them an additional few sheckles. Always been that way.
Last edited:
How many of these things get us to what we're really looking for - sustainable budgets and dependable revenue? Every time you have to go forward with a license fee increase, it gets more difficult to pass them legislatively.
You have more people putting pressure on an agency to do more with less, and then others intentionally trying to starve the agency to get at the tags for their own personal Peay-day.
You can add second pole tags, increase resident fees, and continue the cycle, but you lose hunters and anglers if the perception of a value isn't there, as Oak says.
Or we could forget about milling around the edges, and go after a real source of alternative funding.
Wyoming's Permanent Mineral Trust Fund is a sacred cow, and it would take a huge effort of hunters and anglers to go after a portion of funds destined for that fund and direct them into a non-game trust, or something similar. Or you could get a portion of the sales tax directed towards G&F.
Either way, you realistically need to make up about $20 million in shortfall from what the department should be doing, and what they are currently doing.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ben,
I agree with both you and Oak...but going after permanent alternative funding isnt going to happen in the short-term. I know it and so do you.
The budget shortfall certainly has to be dealt with long term, but what happens budget wise in the next 1-4 years (short term)?
I say jack the fees to increase revenue in the short term, but get SERIOUS about the long term funding problems. Theres no question that the western states G&F agencies have not been pro-active in looking at long term alternative funding sources or that they would have budget shortfalls with all the demands being place on the agencies. Theres also no question that hunters havent been pro-active in recognizing those facts either.
If hunters/fishermen dont want to pay more for their licenses they better get organized and learn to work with the state legislature, game and fish, and non consumptive users for outside funding.
Funny how many people find time to bitch, moan, and complain about a fee increase...get all fired up and even write letters for that. Odd that those same people offer NOTHING for a solution and cant find time to even attend a G&F meeting.
Typical...never changes.
I agree with both you and Oak...but going after permanent alternative funding isnt going to happen in the short-term. I know it and so do you.
The budget shortfall certainly has to be dealt with long term, but what happens budget wise in the next 1-4 years (short term)?
I say jack the fees to increase revenue in the short term, but get SERIOUS about the long term funding problems. Theres no question that the western states G&F agencies have not been pro-active in looking at long term alternative funding sources or that they would have budget shortfalls with all the demands being place on the agencies. Theres also no question that hunters havent been pro-active in recognizing those facts either.
If hunters/fishermen dont want to pay more for their licenses they better get organized and learn to work with the state legislature, game and fish, and non consumptive users for outside funding.
Funny how many people find time to bitch, moan, and complain about a fee increase...get all fired up and even write letters for that. Odd that those same people offer NOTHING for a solution and cant find time to even attend a G&F meeting.
Typical...never changes.
M
MN Public Hunter
Guest
I have an great idea and I really don't get why every state does not do it and that is charge R and NR exactly the same price for the tag. So this year I paid basically $300 for a WY lope tag as a NR and a R pays what $50, so add them together and that is $350, we each pay $175 for the tag. Seems pretty easy to me.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Good luck with that.
I said (probably) the exact same thing in 2005 (I think?). We ended up with a 20% increase and some general fund money for non-game and capitol construction, and a promise that more would be done. Nobody has picked it up since then, and unless they are forced to, they won't. Everybody in the wildlife world was on board with trying something more long term and sustainable, except one group.
People keep kicking the can down the road and soon enough, the whole system will collapse.
Until then, user pays.
Devil Diver Down
Well-known member
Um... Nope. I don't see how that is either a good idea or raises revenue.
AZ402
Well-known member
+1, like Buzz said, good luck with that.
RUT JUNKEY
Well-known member
I get the feeling that some of us don't hunt out of state much and therefore don't see what its like to be a NR. I don't have any "quick fixes" Buzz, all I know is people are going to eventually get tired of paying extra for tags to make up for the short comings of the states DNR or Game and Fish Dept. Its not just in Wyoming, its everywhere. ( I'm not bashing Wyoming. . .relax) Just stayed in Laramie last week and loved it!
