Wyoming wallet alert

[Bluffgruff]

Hard no on transferable landowner tags. This does nothing for the average hunter and doesn't look to benefit the resource either.

The better idea to remove shortfalls due to inflation is to just peg license price increases annually to CPI. License prices increase a little year over year, but not a ton, and no huge move of the goalposts.

 

[RunNGunSC]

I wonder if we are past the NR peak. It has become very costly to apply and buy points in multiple states. With the special tag price increase and talk of an application fee increase, WY may need to forecast a long term drop in applications and point buyers as an offset. How many would still apply for a slim random chance or all three species each year? How many will continue to buy points for family and friends, just to average with them later? I’m not saying fees can’t or shouldn’t increase over time. I just think it should be based on what is needed to maintain the resource and public land access. I love application strategies and application behavior will be fun to watch the next several years. I do hope cost can be capped before the average blue collar worker is priced out of a national pastime. Higher prices are a slippery slope towards privatization.

 

[Farmer20]

Considering the current cost of their elk tags, that seems like a great deal.

 

[Matthew57]

One common misconception that I see a lot on HT is that landowner tags are necessarily expensive. Take a few minutes to look at some online- you can get them for less than most people realize.

The more that hit the market, the cheaper they become. I won’t say Western hunting is ever going to be cheap for guys who live elsewhere, but landowner tags can definitely be a “blue collar” option if guys take the time to look.

If your idea is correct, send me links to these affordable landowner tags.

 

[LopeHunter]

I hate the idea of transferable landowner tags. This is not in the best interest of the Wyoming resident or DIY non-residents. I would bet Wyoming significantly bumps up the application fee for NR to cover the costs. All western states keep squeezing the NRs and it is simply getting crazy. At some point the system is going to go to far. Until then, I will keep playing their games.

The next recession will make it easier to walk away. I did not need a recession to bail on WY. Is insulting how much they raised the cost knowing they would cut available tags so that the random sheep and moose pool is so small that living decades may still not get you to the max point pool. Is bad faith to not require an explanation in the application process that anyone below 20 points is looking out 1/1000 type odds. Hey, everyone thinks they are luckier than average as seen with Vegas making millions per day off people who overestimated their luck and skill. Cut allotment here and there. Raise cost here and there. A recession will happen at some point. The odds will “improve” but 1/500 odds is a debatable improvement.

 

[Treeshark]

If your idea is correct, send me links to these affordable landowner tags.

Sure thing, internet stranger- I will get right on that for you.

Would you like for me to send you every one in existence, or would just the top 100 suffice?

 

[seeth07]

If your idea is correct, send me links to these affordable landowner tags.

google "New Mexico Elk Voucher" and within a few minutes of looking, you will find right now a boatload of vouchers for bull elk seasons anywhere from $1800 to over 30k. Most are in the 4k-9k range currently. Right now, they all just got their vouchers so the prices are extremely inflated. Give it a month or more and those prices all come down significantly - some as many as half.

With application season finally over, I spent a new record of $3460 in non-refundable application fees this year applying my wife and I for tags in 10 states (AK, WI, WY, AZ, NM, CO, UT, KS, SD, ID). Grabbing a NM voucher for 3-4k and having a very fun and good hunt annually is almost the smarter option. I have yet to find an area in NM that I haven't had fun.

Non-resident big game hunting out west is no longer a game for the "blue collar man" - it takes a lot of money in non-refundable application fees. This will only to continue to get worse as CO removes its OTC tags and ID is hopefully soon to get rid of their joke of a "draw" and move it all to draw. There won't be any other options for bull elk hunting anymore without "playing the game" which costs up front money

 

[BuzzH]

Actually, after the citizens of Wyoming, I think the resource is the biggest benefactor of what I am discussing.

It’s the main reason why I keep bringing it up- we need to find ways to put more animals on the mountain.

We f'ing already have too many elk on the mountain.

Transferable tags isn't going to solve anything, only make the harboring situation worse.

You clearly don't understand what the problem you're pretending transferable tags would solve. IF you want to buy a transferable tag, we already have enough of them. Governors and commission tags, get after it.

 

[RoughCountry]

This topic always brings the guys with no money out.

 

[Bullshot]

There's alot of ways that WYGF can increase revenue, one being increase residents licenses, increase applications fees for both residents and non-residents with a reasonable increase and charge application fees for leftover tags. I'd also increase the super tag drawing costs, $30 is pretty cheap for a chance to hunt three animals. In order to eat the elephant you have to do it one bite at a time.

Is it a foregone conclusion that its impossible for WYGF or any other game agency (or any other government program....) to cut costs or become more efficient? It's always MORE MORE MORE.

Yeah yeah.... I know.... dreaming.

 

[Brittany Chukarman]

There's a difference between guys having no money and guys spending it stupidly. Some seem to be pushing the Euro model of game management.

 

[Treeshark]

We f'ing already have too many elk on the mountain.

Hard to say. I think there definitely is an elk location problem, which what I am proposing would absolutely help fix.

Let’s not just focus on elk though- buck mule deer and antelope will be a part of it as well obviously.

 

[seeth07]

We f'ing already have too many elk on the mountain.

Current estimates in the whole state are about 110k elk correct? The Jackson hole elk herd in the early 1900's was estimated to be close to 50k. I have a hard time believing that at 110k right now the state of WY has too many elk. The habitat I'm sure could support a lot more, its the social acceptance and land use that prevents it.

 

[Treeshark]

Is it a foregone conclusion that its impossible for WYGF or any other game agency (or any other government program....) to cut costs or become more efficient? It's always MORE MORE MORE.

Valid question, Bullshot.

 

[rogerthat]

Treecarp, so let me get this straight. I have max points, 18 of those or whatever so I finally draw the tag I’m after and some rich prick buys the transferable tag and hunts the same chit I am because it’s unit wide. Explain to me how that benefitted anyone but the rich prick and the landowner that profited. I look forward to your response.

Edit: I still much prefer this thread to any of the various political crap threads despite my strong dislike of the carps idea.

 

[Treeshark]

Explain to me how that benefitted anyone but the rich prick and the landowner that profited.

I got you, fam!

1. Wyoming citizens benefited because part of his tag $ went back to the state. Pure upside for them, the majority of which don’t even hunt. In addition, the hunter certainly has spent a fair bit contributing to the local economy.

2. Elk/deer/antelope benefited because a larger part of the initial tag fee went back to the state game agency to be spent in their research and management.

3. Landowner benefited because he or she recieved compensation for his hand in helping improve the elk/deer/habitat.

4. Wyoming sportsman benefited, because now their tags/application fees can remain ridiculously cheap. Did you see the reaction from guys on here when they read about a potential $15 increase? Times are clearly tough, and this could be huge for them.

5. Saved the best for last…. YOU benefited, because the landowner has helped create the great hunting you’ve waited 18 years for.

Hunting does not have to be a zero-sum game when you’re focused on adding animals to the mountain. I hope you get a big one!

 

[rogerthat]

I got you, fam!

1. Wyoming citizens benefited because part of his tag $ went back to the state. Pure upside for them, the majority of which don’t even hunt.

2. Elk/deer/antelope benefited because a larger part of the tag went back to the state game agency to be spent in their research and management.

3. Landowner benefited because he recieved compensation for his hand in helping improve the elk/deer/habitat.

4. You benefited, because the landowner has helped create the great hunting you’ve waited 18 years for.

Hunting does not have to be a zero-sum game when you’re focused on adding animals to the mountain. I hope you get a big one!

1. Just sell more tags. Same net benefit to the state.
2. Tag quotas are already set by the bios. Issuing more tags is meddling in their management. Hard to say that’s a benefit.
3. I already said this is a landowner give away.
4. I don’t hunt private. Any benefit you claim is offset by the dilution of more tags hunting the same animals and landscape as me.

I don’t think you have hit on anything yet. Best keep trying

 

[Treeshark]

I don’t think you have hit on anything yet.

We will just have to agree to disagree then, no worries man.

*These will probably be unit-wide, at least most.

I don’t hunt private either, I’ve never shot a game animal anywhere other than public land- but I don’t begrudge those that do.

 

[LuketheDog]

I got you, fam!

1. Wyoming citizens benefited because part of his tag $ went back to the state. Pure upside for them, the majority of which don’t even hunt. In addition, the hunter certainly has spent a fair bit contributing to the local economy.

2. Elk/deer/antelope benefited because a larger part of the initial tag fee went back to the state game agency to be spent in their research and management.

3. Landowner benefited because he or she recieved compensation for his hand in helping improve the elk/deer/habitat.

4. Wyoming sportsman benefited, because now their tags/application fees can remain ridiculously cheap. Did you see the reaction from guys on here when they read about a potential $15 increase? Times are clearly tough, and this could be huge for them.

5. Saved the best for last…. YOU benefited, because the landowner has helped create the great hunting you’ve waited 18 years for.

Hunting does not have to be a zero-sum game when you’re focused on adding animals to the mountain. I hope you get a big one!

1. Literally zero benefit to the citizens, they'll never see a dime unless they own a large parcel of land in a premium unit, the added 'local economy' contribution will be a pittance.

2. Maybe, but the elk/deer/antelope really don't care if they benefit from PLO tags, they will probably just continue to reside on the ranches leased by outfitters or closed to public hunting, where the alfalfa is nice and green. Have you heard of carrying capacity? You can't just add more animals to the mountain to make better hunting, especially in Wyoming, like @BuzzH said...

3. The landowners who benefit are only the ones who are *already* wealthy if this PLO tag system you're touting is modeled on or close to Colorado's or New Mexico's systems already in place, they will pocket the money and continue raising skinny beef cows.

4. Wyoming sportsman's tags are already ridiculously cheap, what you're describing will not reduce their prices, and it will not prevent an increase in the short term even-the government will always find ways to blow the budget and take more money.

5. Telling someone "Great news! You will now have to contend with dozens or hundreds of additional hunters with 0 points on that patch of public land after YOU waited 18 years to draw!" is laughable, might as well kick the guy in the crotch

 

[BuzzH]

Current estimates in the whole state are about 110k elk correct? The Jackson hole elk herd in the early 1900's was estimated to be close to 50k. I have a hard time believing that at 110k right now the state of WY has too many elk. The habitat I'm sure could support a lot more, its the social acceptance and land use that prevents it.

I think you should start paying attention. The Jackson herd is not going to get bigger, in fact they have been trying for decades to reduce that herd.

Feed grounds have been all over the news, and in particular to eliminate them for a variety of reasons.

Again, it's never not funny to listen to the WI contingency talk out of their ass about a state they know nothing about.

Your simple solutions are a joke.