Wyo Outfitter Tags

[jims]

I don't know how many of you guys have noticed a post in the "general" forum with the title Wyo SFW posted by Triple_BB? It has over 100 posts and when I started reading through comments I was totally blown away!

Did you guys know there is a Wyo legislative task force that is currently trying to take tags away from the nonresident pool of tags that would go directly into an outfitter draw pool? As it currently stands Wyo nonresidents only get a fraction of the total tags available and now the SFW legislative group is trying to take more tags away from nonresidents that enjoy hunting on their own!

If you are like me and enjoy hunting self-guided this will make it even tougher to draw tags that are already tough to draw. Wyo outfitters have made it impossible for do-it-yourselfers to hunt big game in wilderness areas without a guide and now they want more tags? Holy cow, this just doesn't seem right! I've heard rumors of 40% of the nonresident tags being set aside for outfitters and can't imagine what the odds will be of drawing if this happens!

Maybe Triple_BB can leave email address, phone numbers, or other contacts to prevent this from happening!

 

[mmwb]

There are email addresses on that thread to the Wyoming Casper Star Tribune, the governor, Wyoming Game and Fish, and the Wyoming State House and Senate. I'd encourage you and everyone to take the time to email and firmly let them know your stand.

 

[Panhandle]

That's sure nice. Just what we need. Another government sponsored welfare bailout program to support failing businesses. I will contact the appropriate people listed in the other threads to make my voice known. If this information is correct about SFW, I can't believe people are supporting this Bass-Akwards group and their line of thinking. Down with SFW. We all need to keep in mind that we are all non-residents somewhere. Thanks, Panhandle.

 

[Bura Nut]

This is some serious stuff. I dont plan on hunting Wy anymore but will donate money to MDF or another organization that will maintain my "Hunting Heritage Rights" as a resident or non-resident. This whole SFW supporting WYOGA smells just like USO.......... Thanks, Allen Taylor......

 

[Founder]

Well I just had a long conversation with Bob Wharff. SFW supports stabilizing the outfitter industry, that's it. He assures me that they ARE looking out for do-it-yourself guys like myself.

I'm against the whole guide allocated tags thing. In my opinion, the task force needs to let the preference point system work to stabilize the outfitting industry before looking at anything else.

Bura Nut - Sending your money to MDF or any other organization isn't going to change what happens in this issue. I doubt MDF cares one way or another on this issue. Will they have a rep. at the meeting? I doubt it.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com

 

[ansonlynn]

My letter to the Casper Star - I wonder if they'll print it!

Dear Editor,

Once again, there is a move afoot to create a "pool" of "guaranteed" licenses for big game outfitters in Wyoming. What a farce!

Any outfitter wanting guaranteed licenses for their clients, need only lease hunting rights on a quality, private land ranch in undersubscribed areas. RIGHT NOW, there are over 6,000 leftover deer licenses (NOT including doe/fawn licenses), thousands more of any antelope licenses, over 600 any elk licenses. All the outfitter has to do, is pay fair market value to the person who owns the habitat (or the access to it).

To me it's simple. The only outfitters who deserve any sympathy regarding licenses, are those who own or lease the privately owned ground they operate on, and still have difficulty drawing "their" hunters. If they want to outfit on public land, however, they should not be entitled to negatively impact those of us who do not care to use their services; emphasis, services. That is the commodity an outfitter SHOULD offer - not access to a public land license.

Outfitting is a business that will always attract too many wannabees, either looking for quick, easy money, and those wanting the lifestyle. Market forces should not be exempted from the outfitting business - and anyone wanting a pool of licenses for clients need only lease land in the dozens of hunt areas where there are thousands of buck and bull licenses available RIGHT NOW. However, that requires giving value for value received!

The best outfitters will - and do - survive; they can charge what they need to, in order to thrive, because a strong track record and excellent word of mouth referrals keep hunters coming back (when they draw - just like you and me), and generates new business. It is the lesser class that can - and should - struggle trying to make an easy dollar off public resources, and often fail. They do not deserve a captive clientele, forced to use them in order to get a license to hunt; and those of us who do not need an outfitter should not see our odds worsened to provide welfare to subrate outfitters in a market with too many providers to begin with! This would be no different than requiring hunters to have their game commercially processed to prop up marginal meat processors, or requiring hunters to have professional taxidermy to legally retain horns and antlers from their game - certainly that would boost the number of taxidermists, and allow them survive while providing substandard service.

I don't hear excellent processors like Dan's in Evansville, or taxidermy artists like Swann's, moaning for hunters to be required to use them - I suspect it's because they have all the business they need. For that matter, I don't hear private land outfitters like S-N-S, who lease hundreds of thousands of private acres and provide good service, whining for this either (check their website, and others like them - there are, RIGHT NOW, outfitted hunts available for Wyoming buck antelope and deer for the 2005 season). I acknowledge I've used the services of the first two; and had a usually cordial, sometimes frustrating professional interaction with the outfitter, but met many of their happy, repeat clients in the field. Quality and service sell.

I hope this effort fails - but if there is going to be a pool of licenses for public land outfitters, I would like to see those auctioned to the highest bidders, not as another welfare entitlement which allows the outfitter to pocket the value of that guaranteed license; that's how we sell off other publicly owned resources into private ownership, e.g., minerals, oil and gas, timber. Further, I would like to see those set-aside revenues in excess of the regular cost of the nonresident license, dedicated to enhancing public land for big game. That way, those of us giving up that welfare handout might get something back, in return for the privilege of allowing a few individuals to privatize and exploit a precious public resource.

Beau Patterson
Wyoming Game and Fish Department Casper District Wildlife Biologist, 1993-2001

 

[Panhandle]

Beau,
Well said. I couldn't have put it better myself.
What's frightening to me is the fact that people really believe all of this B.S. that SFW is feeding them.
If a business is failing it's for a reason. Beau is right about the fact that good outfitters are booked. Maybe not to capacity, but hey, if they need additional money to make a go of it, maybe it's time to get a second job.
Those of you that think SFW is for both outfitters and do-it-yourselfers, I respectfully disagree. It can't be that way. As far as I'm concerned, if the "outfitter pool" gets so much as one non-resident tag, that's to much. Also, since when has outfitting been a tradition that SFW needs to protect? This sounds like another form of affirmative action to me. Didn't hunting start as a way to feed the family and blend into a family tradition that's done amongst family and friends? If we're starting a new tradition that's heading away from that and towards gov't entitled handout outfitted hunting, I think I'm getting out of the sport.
SFW is not out for the average hunter. First the taking of Utah non-resident tags and selling them to the rich, now this push towards supporting an outfitter pool. What's next? If it's now O.K. to take away from non- resident hunters, why wouldn't it soon be O.K. to take away from resident hunters? This is not what the common man wants. Arizona, you had better watch out. The writting is on the wall, and if you can't read it SFW is going to give you and everbody else both barrels when your least expecting it.
I'm sure I haven't made some people happy here on this site, but that's the way I see things as a non-resident hunter.
Thanks, Panhandle.

 

[ICMDEER]

Beau is right on track. I'm a hunter first, but I'm also a small-scale outfitter, mostly in southeast Wyoming on private ranches. We lease ranches in regions J and T and also have public land permits in region D. There are ALWAYS lots of leftover licenses in regions J and T and we are always booked up to whatever level we deem appropriate. Region D is mostly public land, but it had good draw odds this year.

I do not think that outfitters in any state should have a preference for licenses. IMO, it has been detrimental where it has happened in other states. Even landowner license set asides, which I can sometimes agree with, (since they actually own the land and can enhance habitat which is the key) are suspect and have not always worked out well.

I hope Wyoming gets a preference point system for both resident and nonresident hunters. That's a fair way to go.

I can't see an outfitter license pool moving forward in Wyoming. It's been tried too many times and has always failed. But be sure to speak your peace to those involved.

 

[McKinney]

ICMDEER,
As a Wyoming Outfitter, That took "GUTS"! I applaud you.
Thank you for not playing politics.

McKinney aka Hiker
Proverbs 3:5-6

 

[Bura Nut]

I agree that outfitter tags are wrong. I also applaud ICM for speaking up regarding this issue. I just dont like what SFW is doing elsewhere and dont want Arizona to fall into the same problems. I am totally involved and yet none of the representatives have simply put out a position statement for Arizona. There are meetings and meetings soliciting support from all AZ conservation groups but no written position statement. Anyone would feel uncomfortable........... Thanks, Allen Taylor......