Wyoming SFW here's yer sign...

T

Triple_BB

Very Active Member
Messages
1,816
LAST EDITED ON Jul-14-05 AT 05:39PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jul-14-05 AT 05:37?PM (MST)

If any of you Wyoming folks have been paying attention, there is a legislative task force looking at license set asides for those members of our scumbag Wyoming Outfitters Association. Like many welfare groups, they believe the State owes them a living. This message is in part to the SFW since they seem to have some new found political clout judging by the lip service the Casper Star has been giving them. As such, its time to show your colors. In May, Mr. Smokestick responded to the question posed below. His answer was not a resounding no, but a simple no.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Now that the SFW has been in Wyoming for awhile, I'd like to know what your position is on landowner set asides and transferable licenses. You for or against? Just a couple of simple yes or no answers would be appreciated..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Triple_BB,
SFW WY does not currently have a position on set aside landowner or transferable licenses. We have decided to wait until we have more representation throughout Wyoming. So I would say that if you are looking for a yes or no answer, it would be no."
------------------------------------------------------------------Well it looks like you can't afford to wait much longer as the matter is upon us. For you Wyoming residents, you better pick up the phone and/or email your elected representatives. These types of issues have a way of picking up steam and if you're sleeping, something like this will be run right through the next rancher controlled legislative session. The average Joe non-resident will be the ones first affected as the set asides will likely come from their allotment of tags. The next thing you know, the scumbag outfitters (and ranchers who work as outfitters and benefit from outfitter leases) will be pushing for more tags. At some point, the resident licenses will be impacted. My suggestion is, if you don't believe these SOB's are entitled to this type of welfare and you're concerned about your future hunting opportunities, get vocal with your local politician's and in the media!!!
 
I am interested in the outcome and what SFW will do. It would seem to me that they should have been on top of this already and lobbying........I hope this issue is taken care of in the best interests of the game and the hunters........ Thanks, Allen Taylor......
 
I'm betting if it crosses with the cowboy ranching members of the Wyoming legislature SFW wont take a position. Anyone remember elk ranching in UT. A major threat to the future of elk and deer and no position taken by SFW. Playing politics has a cost. SFW knows they cant get anything done by opposing the cowboy caucus. Sucks dont it Az.
 
What has happened with this Wyoming issue? I know Smokestick is the president of SFW-Wyoming and I would like to see what happened with this issue and how SFW helped work things out.......... Thanks, Allen Taylor......
 
Come on Smokestick, speak up. You've been gabbing in the paper on a regular basis. Let us average Joe hunters know what yer group's position is now. I figured you be the first one in the letters to the editor section to call bullchit.
 
AZ should maybe be looking hard at how this is handled because it sure as hell will roll downhill. WHAT'S downhill? AZ is.
 
The million dollar question.Southwest Wy locals I know are waiting to hear this one so please SMOKESTICK and FEDUPTWO please give a reply.This one is going to make or break it for a lot of us. MULEYZ
 
Sounds like that deafening silence is screaming the answer loud and clear.

Ghost Hunter
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-18-05 AT 11:33PM (MST)[p]I was attending the G&F Commission meetings when the Task Force met to discuss several different issues. One of those was a proposal from the Wyoming Outfitter and Guides Association. The proposal was presented to the SFW WY Board of Directors at our meeting in June.

Their proposal has nothing to do with resident hunters, nor does it create any so called set aside licenses. Their proposal calls for establishing a pool of licenses taken from the non-resident quota that is available for outfitted hunts. The license fees would be market driven and vary based upon demand. It sounded a lot like the system being used in Montana.

The following is SFW WY's position statement regarding what was presented to our Board in June:

SFW WY supports efforts to stabilize our outfitting industry by working to resolve issues dealing specifically with non-resident license allocations. SFW WY believes that it is absolutely necessary to resolve this issue in such a fashion as to protect Wyoming?s hunting heritage. Protecting our hunting heritage includes our outfitting heritage as well. Wyoming should support efforts to improve tourism by increasing the ability of our non-resident guests to better plan for their next Great Wyoming Adventure. Taking measures to stabilize the boom ?vs.- bust cycle that now takes place in the outfitting industry will greatly improve the outcome for many of our non-residents hunters and enhance their outdoor experiences in Wyoming.

Please consider our support as you evaluate and explore this option before you.

Thanks for your time and dedication in protecting Wyoming?s Wonderful Wildlife Resources.

Respectfully,

Robert Wharff
Executive Director
Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife of Wyoming

aka; SMOKESTICK
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-19-05 AT 00:47AM (MST)[p] I do support WYOGA'S proposal and it important to state that I am not an Outfitter, or have any relation to outfitters what so ever, except that through the wolf battles I've had the pleasure to become aquainted with several, and I can testify that they are as avid of sportsmen as I've ever met.

These are the reasons that I support WYOGA'S position:
As SFW has been battling the rampent spread of wolves, and grizzlies WYOGA, and ESA WYOGA has been the resident sportsmen's strongest allies.

It improves Wyoming's econmy, especially in small towns like Afton, GreyBull, and Dubious that depend on this trade to keep the doors open.

This plan has absolutly no effect on resident sportsmen in anyway and that is who SFW Wyoming is charged with representing
This solution to the WYOGA's problem comes at no cost to resident sportsmen and I feel that the next step for WYOGA is litigation which could depending on the judge(S) end up affecting resident sportsmen like it did in AZ, and NV.
From the start of SFW in Wyoming our goals have been to work on relationships with other stake-holders when possible. We have a strong repore with AG, Outfitters, and most sportsmen in the state that has heard our message. Triple BB can keep on stirring the pot and calling names but in the end the only one hes hurting is resident Wyoming sportsmen. We do not always see eye to eye with these other stakeholders and we have clashed on many issues but the saying in the business is lets agree to disagree. We have infinatly more respect than the other "sportsmen groups" in the state, and therefore when we need a hand getting something accomplished we can ask for a hand. This is evident by the passage of the Wild Life trust bill which legislation similar to this had been killed on multiple attempts. I kind of see this is what WYOGA did with us.
They called a favor as like I said it doesn't affect Wyoming Residents.
Another point I'd like to make is every industry in this state whether it be oil & gas, Ag, mining, or tourism is subsidized by the state of Wyoming. We do this because it provides our tax base, and encourages new growth. We generally see 20 fold our payout in return. A stable outfitting industry would be no exception.

I would love to hear from Resident Sportsmen(especially SFW members) privatly that have concerns about this.
I'm particually intrested in the following questions.

1. How does it Affect WYO residents
2. what benifit does it provide to Wyo residents to have the outfitting industry ousted.
I will not be involved in any name calling or grudge posts so don't waste your type
Thanks
Eric Adams
SFW State Board
 
Eric-I am concerned with Arizona so I will ask you this. Why is it good for the resident hunter to allow any business to take control of the resource? How is it fair to the non-resident middle class hunter to take away his ability to do a once in a lifetime hunt on his own? Why should the resident hunter allow their resource to be politically controlled and not believe that the next step in the scheme will be to take control of the best resident tags as well? Look at Colorado where the outfitters and landowners control of 90% of the bull and buck tags and the public gets to shoot the girls on private ground. Nice tradeoff for access. You say outfitters are to be trusted and I know and like some good ones. Problem is that USO was trusted at one time also. As for the fear of a lawsuit I doubt you will see it after the Reid legislation. JMO.
 
Last time I checked we live in a free country. Why not let non-residents have the freedom to choose whether to hire an outfitter or not to. Pretty soon it will be required for all nonresidents to hire an outfitter to hunt anywhere in Wyoming, not just the wilderness areas. The problem with starting something like this is that it may start as a small quota, but every few years the outfitters will lobby to bump it up a few percentage points. The commercialization/high cost of hunting will be its downfall in the not so distant future.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-19-05 AT 08:20AM (MST)[p]Gents:

I usually just read on this site, but thought I would provide some perspective from a MT resident that has seen the effect of guaranteed licenses for outfitters here in MT.

1. You are removing an ecomonic risk from the business of outiftting, that being the risk of clients drawing tags. You will see much more leasing than currently exists, as now outfitters will have no doubt that they can fill the leased property with hunters. In MT, resident hunters are mounting a battle to get this guarantee overturned. Our system started in 1995. Since that time, we have seen more than 20% reductions in resident deer tag sales. Most attribute that to residents losing places to hunt as a result of outfitter leasing.

2. Local businesses that rely upon the inlux of non-guided hunters (resident and non-residnet) are the most impacted. Having hunted WY (and will do so again this year), I have seen what impact hunting has to your small businesses. When land is leased, or most hunts are outfitted, the hunters most often stay in camps. They don't stay in motels, eat at local restaurants, drive their own vehicles that require buying gas at the local gas stations, etc.

3. A big complaint from MT residents is now that we removed our 5,500 outfitter sponsored tags from the pool of 17,000 total non-resident tags, it is much harder for their non-resident family members to come back home and hunt, as it is just that much harder for them to draw the non-resident tag. I am not sure if this is true, but a lot of people who left MT to find work, cite it as a reason why they are not able to come back home and hunt as often as they had before.

4. Does your state really want to get into the business of subsidizing a particular industry? Though it is not a direct payment of cash, removal of competitive forces is a subsidy, by all definitions used by economists. Changing these programs is almost impossible once they get established.

I wish Montana's program would not have required an outfitter, but merely allowed non-residents to purchase a license at the higher market-driven prices. That would have allowed non-resident hunters to strike agreements with landowners, and see that the landowner get the money. Afterall, he is providing the resource of habitat. In MT, we now have outfitters who are nothing more than hunting brokers. They control/lease vast tracts of land, knowing their clients can get tags through them. As a result, they really do not provide much of a guide service, other than access to the lands. They keep most the money from the transaction and small amounts go to the landowner. As a CPA who has clients who are both outfitters and landowners, I see who ends up with the money from this transaction, and it isn't the landowner.

Also, a market priced license that does not require an outfitter will result in a higher market price, as there will not be the additional cost of outiftter fees. In MT, our market-priced licenses are used to fund our Block Management System - a system where the state pays landowners for public hunting access. We currently have over 7,000,000 acres enrolled. If the licenses were sold with out the "outfitter" requirement, most economists feel the market-drive price would double, allowing us to double the size of the Block Management program and doubling the amount of cash that eventually ends up in the hands of landowners.

I have no axe to grind with the outfitting industry. When MT orginally proposed their system, I supported it, but with ten years to reflect, we made a big mistake, especially with respect to how it impacted our resident hunters. I am fortunate that I can afford to hunt a lot of other places and hunt mostly private land in MT, but few of our resident hunters have that luxury. As a result, our resident participation, and the participation by their children is dwindling, and at a fast pace. Not good for the future or hunting in my mind.

This outfitter guarantee becomes a "quasi" right granted to an industry. Before doing so, please remember how hard it is to change something once you have given it away. For the sake of your resident hunters, please proceed with caution.

Sorry to be so lengthy. Maybe that is why I don't post very often.

Happy Hunting to all!!!
 
The WYOGA proposal creates a pool of 2,900 licenses that are only available for outfitted hunts. There still are licenses available for non-residents to obtain, be it through the regular license or the special (higher fee) license.

The pool doesn't belong to any one outfitter, they all must compete for these licenses.

This will help with non-residents that desire to hunt with outfitters as they will only be competing amongst themselves. In addition, it might make it easier for the two law enforcement guys to identify and prosecute illegal outfitters.
Non-residents that still like to got it alone will have plenty of opportunities to do their own thing.

There has been a few Wyoming residents that have made a career out of keeping Sportsmen forces from uniting. You see it constantly on MM, but SFW WY has been able to build successful coalitions which have enabled us to benefit Wyoming's Sportsmen and Sportswomen. The facts are, WYOGA presented a concept to our Board a year ago. And to their credit, they listened to our comments, went back and made subsequent changes to their proposal.

People can speculate about cause and effect, etc. The bottomline is that we need to protect our hunting heritage. Outfitter's are part of Wyoming's hunting heritage. SFW WY will work with WYOGA to ensure that their actions do not negatively impact Wyoming's resident Sportsmen. SFW WY will also look at how their actions impact Wyoming's non-resident Sportsmen as well. Neither WYOGA, nor SFW believes that all hunters must nor should be outfitted. However, there are many that want to experience some of the amazing things in Wyoming but they are not familiar enough with the state nor do they have the time necessary to become familiar enough to do it on there own.

SFW WY will continue to stive for common ground within our hunting community. This doesn't mean that we won't have disagreements but it will allow us to work collectively on common goals. By forging a better relationship with Outfitter's, Oil & Gas, Mining, and Agriculture I believe we can accomplish a lot more. Communication has already helped us secure a Wildlife Trust that will greatly benefit all of Wyoming's residents, even those that are not members of SFW WY. Why? Because, what SFW WY is doing is about Wyoming. Whether or not people on the outside agree with us or not SFW WY is trying to make a difference. It is far too easy to set back a criticise than it is to make a difference. SFW WY will continue to address issues that others have avoided because SFW WY believes they have been neglected long enough.

I have stated before that I see access becoming an even bigger issue in Wyoming. How will Wyoming's Sportsmen increase access as well as hunting opportunities? It can not be done in a vacuum. It will require all different groups to work together to develop a variety of programs to address a variety of issues. Wyoming has an access yes program to provide incentives for landowners to allow for access to private property. Do Wyoming's Sportsmen provide enough dollars to the access yes program or should those dollars come from somewhere else? Does this program address access to large tracts of private property? How can Wyoming's (average six-pack Joes) Sportsmen increase hunting opportunities throughout the state? How can more hunting occur unless more wildlife which we hunt is available? Where will the additional wildlife reside?

The questions are endless. I am certain that many can and will come up with additional questions. I don't have all of the answers, but I am certain that all of the questions will not be easily resolved or even addressed without someone willing to take them on. SFW WY is not about "coffee shop" management. We are working to address and resolve difficult issues. Sit back and criticise if that is all you have to offer; however, I believe Sportsmen can make a difference. It will not happen unless we work together for common goals and objectives.

I remember Don Peay stating often that he wondered how ranchers and farmers could form and maintain organizations like the Farm Bureau, Cattlemen's Associations, Wool Grower's Associations, Livestock Producers, etc. when they tend to be very indepently minded, have fought (sometimes literally) over water, and seem to have several different ways of accomplishing their goals and objectives. Look at all of the Environmental groups which are out there seeking to take away your hunting heritage, as well as your guns. Why can they do it and we can not? Because they are committed to their causes! Don Peay has taught me that the key is to focus on the "big picture". What is the "big picture" which SFW has chosen to focus its energies upon? Protecting and enhancing wildlife habitat, promoting quality wildlife management programs, and protecting America's family heritage of hunting and fishing.
 
Follow the money.

No surprise at all. That's all SFW is about. Supporting this cancer that is outfitter entitlements and nonresident discrimination. I have seen this bunch do little to nothing for regular joe hunter. On the other hand, if you are wealthy, your chances of drawing a WY tag will increase.

Good luck Arizona, remember to follow the money.
 
my vote.
linch them.
money grabing a--holes.
they only want to line their pockets.
it's like prostitution.
only the guy who can't make it with a chick on his own payes for it.
personaly i think outfitting / guiding should be outlawed.
 
Follow the money.

"SFW WY supports efforts to stabilize our outfitting industry by working to resolve issues dealing specifically with non-resident license allocations. SFW WY believes that it is absolutely necessary to resolve this issue in such a fashion as to protect Wyoming?s hunting heritage. Protecting our hunting heritage includes our outfitting heritage as well. Wyoming should support efforts to improve tourism by increasing the ability of our non-resident guests to better plan for their next Great Wyoming Adventure. Taking measures to stabilize the boom ?vs.- bust cycle that now takes place in the outfitting industry will greatly improve the outcome for many of our non-residents hunters and enhance their outdoor experiences in Wyoming."

Protect Wyoming's hunting heritage? Haha! Where exactly was it going?

I love this line:

"improve tourism by increasing the ability of our non-resident guests to better plan for their next Great Wyoming Adventure."

Uhhhhhh..........what? Oh OK, I see, this new outfitter entitlement will actually help nonresidents because it will set us straight about our ineptitude when it comes to hunting on our own. Our outdoor experience will be "enhanced" by having our hands being held by an outfitter while his other is in our pocket.

It has nothing to do with money. Neither do the new $100 sheep points. That is also all about management and is great for us regular joe hunters...........Right?

Taking out the boom vs. bust cycle for outfitters? With a government subsidy program? Can you say more outfitters and more pressure for more entitlement tags, and more leasing, and fewer opportunity for regular joe WY resident hunter as well as regular joe NR hunter?

SFW shows it's colors.

Follow the money.
 
BearBow,

Follow the money. SFW stands nothing to gain from this so follow the money all you want.

By the way, SFW played a critical role in establishing the Wildlife Trust. For over 20 years Wyoming had tried it unsuccessfully because no one wanted to address the concerns a wildlife trust creates. SFW WY took on that task and was able to work with Agriculture and Oil & Gas industries to get it done. The Wildlife trust doesn't just benefit one class of individual, nor does it benefit SFW WY members alone.

Keep following the money. Have you contributed anything to MM or helped in any way to benefit wildlife resources, improving hunting opportunities, etc. Put your actions to the test, you have clearly demonstrated that you can work your mouth.
 
BigFin,

Great post these are points I would have never thought about, but definitely could see them being true.
 
Does SFW really represent sportsmen? I have been a member for 2 years and have never been polled (formally or informally) by the leadership of SFW regarding any wildlife management proposal. Oh ya, Don did ask who all hated wolves when I was at a banquet a few weeks ago. It seems to me that members of SFW don't have a way to voice their concerns, we just divvy out money to enhance habitat to a "for profit" organization, then the state agencies look to SFW as THE representative for sportsmen.
 
What I am going to say might piss some people off but it is none the less true. In my 25 years of living in Utah I have seen a steady decline in opportuntity for deer hunters.

Now some might disagree based on a few trophy areas but all in all there is less hunters today with more restrictions then there ever has been in Utah.

Several years ago we cut deer licenses to 97,000 then this year it got cut to 95,000. There was a day when over 230,000 people got to hunt Utah. We have taken areas like Vernon, Bookcliffs and the Henry mountains and turned them into limited area trophy units,where a few hunters get to enjoy a hunt every 5-10-15 years. We have gone from being able to hunt with our bows, muzzle loaders and rifles to having to choose which hunt we will hunt, and then we have to draw for it anyway.

Our deer herds are under 300,000 in population. Now I will admit our buck to doe ratios are up as well as our quality of antler size, but all of this is a direct correlation of reducing hunters and hunting opportunity.

You see there is a trade off here, do you want to hunt trophy bucks a couple times in your life? or do you want to hunt several times in your life?

If we are to recruit our kids and their friends we need to give them the chance to hunt more then 1 time in 3-5-10 years. Quite frankly who cares if their is a big buck yet you never get a chance to hunt him. Utahs system like all the other states is flawed. The vast majority of hunters want to hunt, not sit around and watch the guides, outfitters and rich people hunt. Now all of those people are important to the process but Setting permits aside for a few special intrests groups can be a very bad thing.
Be very careful what you allow to happen within your state expecially when it comes to politics, you see a select few should not dictate policy to the masses, the problem is that a select few usually do because they are louder and more persuasive then the masses. Look what happened with the wolf reintroduction in Wyoming,Montana and Idaho, a select few got their wishes and now it is ruining our hunting opportunity.

All sportsmen groups do good things in their own way the problem is most of them have their best intrest in mind at not yours.

Find a group that will stand up for the guy that can't stand up for himself and then you have found the group that will make a difference for ordinary joe.

I long for the day when wildlife is managed by those that truly put the wildlife 1st and not by those with hidden or personal agendas.

Politicians do what their money guys tell them to do or their out of office, wether that is right or wrong is a personal opinion, but know this, any person or group that has complete control of a process is a receipe for disaster. In their own mind they believe they are doing what is right and are justified by those that believe in them, wether it is an anti hunting group, a sportsmen group or a livestock group they are no different then a dictator when they get power.

All I am saying is you wouldn't let a stranger in your house or babysit your kids, so be careful who you let run your wildlife.

Tony Abbott
General Manager
Mule Deer Foundation
[email protected]
 
Well said Tony!....SFW has shown their true colors here in Utah with their Hidden Agendas and Smoke and Mirrors Salesmanship! ..... Other states should take heed!
 
The WY Outfitters already have a monopoly on non-resident wilderness hunts, and many of the easy to draw unit in WY are that way because they have lots of private land that is already controlled by outfitters. The whole hunting scene is shifting more and more towards becoming a rich mans sport. Many of these rich men will pat themselves on the back for days talking about how much good they have done for the species, but they don't realize they are shooting themselves in the foot. As hunting becomes less and less accessible for the Public Land General Season Hunter fewer young people will hunt, fewer people in general will hunt, and public support will wax thin. As the numbers of hunters and public support decline so will public funding for wildlife managment, and we will run the risk of anti-hunting groups making legal progress against hunting (i.e. lion hunting in CA). I appreciate the work that conservation orgs perform, and I appreciate the privlidege that a free market allows to wealthy individuals to purchase tags, to a point. I feel that there is already enough opportunity for wealthy individuals. The conservation orgs need to focus more time and energy into producing opportunity for the average Joe Hunter, or pretty soon there will be no average Joe hunter.
Dax
 
I can see that if SFW and RFW get the private tag pitch going in Arizona we will end up with a ballot initiative to outlaw all commercialization of the state's game animals. It would be an easy pitch and have broad support as most are offended by the sale of Bambi. It would play into PETA and every other anti hunting groups hands. Say good bye to taxidermists, outfitters and eventually hunting. I hope that SFW realizes that a pissed off hunter can make a tough enemy. If they do the wrong thing they just may kill the golden goose. You can lobby greedy politicians all you want but with the ballot initiative it doesn't mean squat. The USO mess was harmful to hunting and the wrong moves by the greedy will do the same thing. JMO.
 
Tony,

I have rarely agreed with you and had several discussions with you over the internet but you nailed it right on the head. I hope your position with the MDF can help Utah. It seems you have caught the vision that I have. People wonder why recruitment amongst hunters is dropping. It is clearly associated with the lost opportunity and the push for trophy animals at ALL costs. There are a lot of people in this state that no longer hunt because of this lost opportunity. I have seen young hunters made fun of and even chewed out for shooting small bucks. What kind of message does that send? A kid kills his first deer a 2 point and his feelings of enjoyment are crushed when some knucklehead who only cares about score berates him for not letting the 2 point go. It is time that someone stands up to SFW and changes this continued loss of opportunity. Think how many kids and adults could be hunting LE animlas this year if we did not give away over 500 permits to these groups (of which MDF got their share). Say what you want guy's but these bid permits and auction permits rarely go to the average guy. They nearly every year go to the wealthy. I know a guy who has bought 3-5 Wasatch elk tags every year. No waiting periods. He has also bought a Bison tag and an antelope tag. I say more power to him. But, I think this must change. We must reign in these conservation tag allotments and bring them back to a realistic #. Sorry for the rambling but this just drives me crazy!

Chad
 
Chad look between the lines
Wyoming does not give out 500 prime tags like Utah does.
Bob will probably disagree with me but I'll bet next spring
when the fundraisers start going SFW will probably see an increase in the amount of "DONATED" tags from the outfitter association.

Tony care to elaborate on the evil dictator???
 
Wildlife management is a balancing act. Often quality vs opportunity. Every state should have both. Every states should try to help young hunters and provide reasonable opportunities for both residents and non-residents. Consevation groups should make things better and protect our ability to enjoy hunting. Killing a 2 point buck is a trill to many, especially young hunters. Killing a 180 class buck is nothing special to some. It is a hard balancing act to make everyone happy. It seldom happens. If you don't have habitat you don't have animals to hunt. Some may have their heads in the sand when they think with more development and loss of winter range they can still have the same number of animals to hunt. Groups that raise money for winter range, get money for preditor control, do the political fighting to control preditors. Maintain sportsmen access, provide youth hunting and fishing programs, and fight our political battles are worth supporting. Some have asked me why don't we close the Cache deer unit and get hunting better. (Less opportunity bigger bucks) Some want to hunt all seasons and have less quality. It's a trade off. Let's be civil in our opinions. P.S. Autumn pride I believe your taxidermy business has benifited from the hard work and efforts from SFW in Cache valley and Utah.
 
Gordy,

It wouldn't take much to see an increase in donated hunts from Wyoming's Outfitter's. I know of one Outfitter in Park County that made 100 mule deer opportunities available for youth hunters. All they needed to do to qualify was attend some of the Big Horn Basin SFW membership meeting's. None of those opportunities were used to generate any money for SFW WY.

I only know of one donated Wyoming outfitter hunt auctioned at an SFW event and it happened in Orem, UT.

Like it has been said prior, this doesn't affect resident hunting opportunities whatsoever. For all of the negative comments not one person has came up with an alternative solution. Keep in mind, this was not an SFW proposal either. SFW simply reveiwed the WYOGA proposal and it didn't cause our group any concern. I guess we are comfortable knowing that many of the "imaginations" being supposed won't occur because SFW will not allow them to occur. SFW WY has not walked away from any of our members goals or objectives. We have stood our ground when no one else was willing to stand up. We will continue to work to resolve issues which will ultimately increase hunting opportunities for Wyoming's Sportsmen.

On another note; doesn't it appear a bit hypocritical for someone working for a conservation group to accuse other groups as having personal or hidden agendas, especially given that they are actually working for one of the groups which will equally benefit from the "Super Convention?"
 
Well lets make this public, besides the convention how many tags does SFW and MDF receive? Doesn't SFW have 300 plus?
 
Seems like alot of squawking over nothing1

1. The Wyoming Outfitters proposal applies ONLY to those NONRESIDENT hunters that desire to be outfitted.

2. There is no Subsidizing An Industry. (see 1. above) the outfitters STILL have to sell their hunts and it is STILL a draw. Nobody is making anyone apply for these licenses.

3. Uncle Willie, cousin Louie and brother Jake can still apply for the 10% Special Draw or the 50% Regular Draw. Won't the issuance of Preference Points make life and the draw wonderful for everyone? That's what you have been telling the Game and Fish Commission!

4. Unused licenses from the Outfitter Pool of licenses will automatically roll over to the 10% Special Pool for uncle Willie, cousin Louie and brother Jake to access making their chances of drawing even better.

5. In 2004 Licensed Wyoming Outfitters took a total of 3130 Elk Hunters Hunting. This includes Nonresident General and Limited Quota Hunters both Special and Regular Licenses along with the Resident General and Limited Quota Hunters that hired outfitters.

6. If implimented, this plan will virtually eliminate the illegal, unlicensed outfitters that rip residents and nonresidents alike off.

Wyoming SFW has taken an honest, fair and realistic approach to this Task Force. I say; Good Job! Keep it up!
 
Is it fair for one nonresident to recieve better drawing odds than another nonresident for a certain hunt unit just because he signed on the dotted line with an outfitter?
 
Bob

If you would like to address me then please feel free to do so in an open manner. Hypocriticle is an awful strong word to use and if you believe I am then that is your opinion. I am not bashing any group or any person nor have I for some time, I simply said that the process is flawed and be careful who you let set your policy.

I am part of the Utah problem, I helped build the Utah problem, and I am trying to fix the Utah problem. You see the tags MDF had and sold this year generated a higher return then any other organization. We also sold a tag for more then any tag has ever sold for from Utah, I helped build the monster that Utah is and some people think that is great but most people don't. The only point I was making is that average joe has not been represented very well at all. There is nothing you can say or do to change this fact.

Average Joe has less days in the field, less permits to draw from, and less weapon choices to hunt game. Average Joe goes to the wildlife meetings and is not heard, not only is he not heard he is not listened to.

The largest conservation membership base in Utah is the RMEF and they have about 7,000 members. That is only less then 1% of the licensed hunter and fishers in the state. All of the other groups have less then that.

What I am saying is politicians should not run wildlife nor should their money men or special intrest groups. Wildlife should be run by Bioligists and the sportsmen paying the bill.General Deer licenses should raise about 3.8 million in Utah this year alone, more then all the conservation groups put together, shouldn't they have a say? The money tags will generate about 1.6 million this year which is great but does that me conservation groups should dictate policy? Should the group who sells the most tags or the highest dollar amount dictate policy? Should the politicians who are lobbied by these groups dictate policy? Why do we have bioligist? Well frankly speaking we have them because they are the experts. When my car breaks down I take it to a mechanic, When I need bread I go to a bakery, If I am sick I visit the doctor, if I need shoes I go to the shoe store, I don't lobby a politician to do any of those things so why would I ask them to fix wildlife.

1 truth everyone should know is a politician is loyal to the highest bidder and biggest donor and believe it or not that is not always a good thing. There is few intances when politicians should be involved like the USO case, but that is rare.

I like you Bob have been employed by more then 1 orginization,
and we have both formed our opinions based on our experience and dealings with those organizations, we have both worn the other mans shoes to an extent and we both know what it takes to be succesful. The only difference between you and I that I see is you believe your group is the only group that can make a difference, where as I believe all groups (including yours) has its place. I hope you are not arrogant enough to believe that your group or any one group can save wildlife because they cannot. The very reason this convention idea came up is because groups need to work together.

Bob several years ago I helped dream up this concept and I will go on record as saying had I not left your group and helped bring MDF to the forefront in Utah this convention would never of happened because we where in the buisness of putting other groups out of buisness.

In 2006 MDF and FNAWS are doing a joint national convention, this will be the 1st time to my knowledge that 2 major wildlife conservation groups have done this. I am excited for what should come of it. It should really prepare us for the 2007 super convention.

Bob it bothers me when individuals believe they are bigger then the process and believe their way is the only way, you see I can say that because I use to be one of those individuals that believed and preached that there was only one way. I know that to be much different now and I am activly trying to get people to voice their opinions and concerns and get them to believe they can be heard and make a difference.

Bob I for the most part enjoy your posts, they are usually informative and intelleigent but your last one missed the mark when you stated "had we not agreed with the proposal we would not of let it happen". Bob wether you meant to be arrogant or not by that statement you sure did come across that way.

In life you don't win every battle or every arguement, whats important is winning the ones that matter. I guess you and I will agree to disagree on what matters but rest assured that MDF is nothing like it was when you were there and MDF will represent Joe hunter and habitat projects and I will ensure that that happens. Mdf has a strong commitment to habitat restoration and game managment, and if that means working with politicians (not for them) then they will do that also.

I have 1 goal Bob, and that goal is to see hunting cherished and participated in by the masses not the minority. If we don't do things to increase opportunity (which may require less quaility) then we have all failed. Mule Deer is my passion and noone has workrked harder for it or will work harder for it then I. I have made mistakes, and not been popular, and even cussed out for things I have done and said, but with that being said I have never forgotten what got me where I am today (supporting the average hunter). Bob your groups growth in Utah came only after there was a person who was looking out for average hunter and was accesible to them, don't forget that as you move forward in Wyoming.

I wish you and your group all the success in the world as long as it doesn't come at the expense of 1 average hunter. We have different ideas on how wildlife should be managed, I guess only time will tell who's doing it the right way.

Yours in wildlife
Tony Abbott
General Manager
Mule Deer Foundation
[email protected]
 
Bob

what you said was "many of the imaginations that suppose will not because sfw will not allow them to happen". Can you clarify this for me.

tony
 
EKB,

With your grand total of 5 posts, I suspect you are either DP himself, one of his cronnies, or a Wyoming outfitter eager for your entitlement.

"1. The Wyoming Outfitters proposal applies ONLY to those NONRESIDENT hunters that desire to be outfitted."

What kind of moronic comment is this?! Even the most progressive outfitter would not deny the rule affects all nonresident's draw chances. This scam most definitely does affect regular joe self-guided NONRESIDENT hunters. It screws them and you dam well know it.

"2. There is no Subsidizing An Industry. (see 1. above) the outfitters STILL have to sell their hunts and it is STILL a draw. Nobody is making anyone apply for these licenses."

Another comment totally defying logic. What are you talking about? This is classic entitlement or government subsidising in it's finest sense. Same as the wilderness entitlement.

"3. Uncle Willie, cousin Louie and brother Jake can still apply for the 10% Special Draw or the 50% Regular Draw. Won't the issuance of Preference Points make life and the draw wonderful for everyone? That's what you have been telling the Game and Fish Commission!"

This is the point where I become suspicious you are a troll.

"4. Unused licenses from the Outfitter Pool of licenses will automatically roll over to the 10% Special Pool for uncle Willie, cousin Louie and brother Jake to access making their chances of drawing even better."

This is the point where I know you are a troll. Please analyze the mathematics of this bizarre comment.

This Wyoming Outfitters proposal, combined with the rediculous point fee scam, firmly entrenches Wyoming as a frontrunner in the "hunting for the wealthy only" movement. Right up SFW's alley.
 
Mdf received 82 permits this year from Utahs conservation permit program of which 7 were turkey, 4 were bear, 5 were lion 2 were swan, 2 were crane and 8 were general season deer. that leaves about 54 that where limited entry permits. Mdf raised over $500,000 on these permits, that 90% will be spent in Utah on habitat projects approved by the DWR.

Tony
 
You residents better get your acts together and start writing the Governor and your elected representatives or this matter will be rammed down our throats before we know what happened. You non residents should be calling your Wyoming hunting buddies and ask them to write their elected officials as you stand to lose first. Once the outfitters get a bigger chunk of the non resident pie, they'll be pushing for more tags, whether it comes from resident or non resident quota's. Remember when the WGOA sued the state a few years ago trying to get the non resident license quota increased. Guess where that increase was going to come from; the resident allotment. Thankfully the WGOA got slapped upside the head. The SFW is obviously in bed with our scum bag outfitters. Its a bad combination when you have a group purporting to represent the average Joe hunter who also cozy's up with a group like the WGOA. Smokestick, you've advised you're primarily a group who represents members in the southwest corner of the state. Do us a favor, stick to issues that deal with your little corner of heaven and leave the rest of the state alone. Also, whats with the comment that your group is trying to help tourism and local economy's. That's a bullchit statement. Apparently you're thinking the average Joe non resident who currently draws these licenses spends no money when they come to Wyoming or go to Afton or any other place on your side of the state? Tell Don Peay he's going to lose this one. I'm going to do everything I can to alert hunters in this area of what is going on. My first call tomorrow will be to ##### Sadler who has been a true hunter advocate for decades. I'm sure he will enjoy reading this thread.
 
I have been hunting Wyoming, as a non-resident, off and on for over 15 years. During that time I have seen changes that have been good and bad for non-residents and sometimes resident hunters. I have developed a mistrust of the Outfitters Assoc. in Wyoming. We must remember that this assoc. is geared to benefit the outfitters in Wyoming, and every one else takes a back seat. This includes resident & non-resident hunters.
Why do I mistrust this Assoc. For one they were the driving force behind not allowing any non-resident hunter into the wilderness areas without having a guide. It is alright for a non-resident to enter the wilderness to fish, bird watch, hike, or camp, but not to hunt.
Second they have bought up ranch hunting leases from ranchers and have forbid any trespass though those ranches to any public land that the private property encloses. The only way a resident or non-resident can go though the private land to the public, mostly BLM land, is by hiring the outfitter as a guide at very high prices. Does Elk Mountain ring a bell. When some smart non-resident hunter used a helicopter to gain excess over the private land to the BLM land, the outfitters got a law passed that would not allow any hunting for 24 or 48 hours after flying in by helicopter.
This issue concerns both non-resident and Wyoming resident hunters because you can not trust the Wyoming Outfitters Assoc. to be looking out for either one, only themselfs. I say NO!!! to their request for welfare payments. There will be enought non-resident hunters willing to use outfitters or guides as long as they run a good fair business. Why should every hunter be made to support then with a welfare check. They already have a foothold, and piece by piece they are trying to control all hunting in Wyoming and this will effect locals as well as non-residents. Just wait and see for yourself.
Just my two cents and my honest opinion as I see it.
RELH
 
Atleast 'FEDUP2' was honest ............

Pro Outfitter

Pro Landowner tags

Anti non-residents

Fluffy heritage BS for the residents to cuddle up to.

Give the guy some credit.
 
Tony that is awesome that you finally get it
unfortunately there is going to be a very long road
ahead to put things back to the way they should be.

I hear that one of the people that you worked
with when you were with the dark side taking away elk hunts
is trying to get get a great idea up and rolling statewide,
it worked up north now it is time to expand to the other four regions.

Hopefully you and Bill have already spoken with this person.

Gordy
 
Hunting100,

Please enlighten me on how I have benefited from the hard work, sweat and tears of SFW...If your organization is so great, whats with the hard sell??

Kevin Petersen
 
As a member of UTSFW, it really upsets me to see a "sister" organization which is trying to screw over the rest of us. As a SFW member for many years, I know the flaws in the system. I also know that residents should be given preferential treatment when obtaining a tag. What is a crock it is when Non-Resident hunters are given preferential treatment over other Non-Resident hunters soley based on money.

I wonder, How many outfitters are on the WYSFW Board??

On another note I think the best post yet was by Big Fin. Once the outfitters have the tags, then they WILL tie up the land. Will the tags be by region and unit? Again, those tags will come out of the Non-Resident pool. Thus lowering the chance of drawing for the non-baby-sitted hunter.

And while agree with a lot of what Tony has said, I do tend to wonder about the rumor of where that 10% went and whose pockets it lined.

Bob was once a respected man by many SFW/Non-SFW hunters. I now hear and see the discontent from many on what he has written and spoke of supporting the Non-Guided discrimination. He has and WILL piss off more people with this proposal than without it. That is a FACT.
 
SFW WY has no outfitters on our Board of Directors.

All of you that have concerns need to read our statement again.

If you don't like what is being proposed by WYOGA then come up with an alternative.

Wyoming G&F is working on putting together a poll which will be sent out to identify solutions that can address the concerns raised by the Wyoming Legislative Task Force on Hunting Segments of Tourism. This is a Task Force put together by Governor Freudenthal. Oh; and, just for the record, the Task Force had no SFW WY representation on it. Do you think there may be others out there which also believe something needs to happen to stabilize Wyoming's Outfitting Industry?

So far all I have seen is complaints and accusations; most of which are unfounded or backed only by opinion. USe this thread for something good; come up with some alternatives. If someone comes up with a valid proposal, I am certain SFW WY will ensure that it is considered. Otherwise, sit back and whine on MM, and continue wishing you could make a difference.
 
Gleninaz, Do I understand you? Are you saying that outfitters and ranchers control 90% of buck and bull tags while the general public fights over the remaining 10% in CO? If so, possibly you need to research a bit farther.

Outfitters and ranchers DON'T control anywhere near that number. Possibly you're talking about the Ranching for Wildlife program, which is only on private property, only on specific ranches, and amounts to very few licenses overall.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-20-05 AT 04:09PM (MST)[p]As a Non-Resident who loves the State of Wyoming and hunts there a lot, I very much dislike the NO Wilderness without a guide rule. I hunt DIY and I do a lot of homework before I hunt and get great satisfaction harvesting my animal on my own. I would love to hunt some of these Wilderness areas but based on Wyoming law, I am not allowed.
With GPS and good maps and a good compass, woodsmen can navigate very well in these areas, like they do in all the other Rocky Mountain States. This Law is way to...outdated. Most remote areas in the state of Wyoming, that is not a Wilderness area is really tough for us Non-Residents to get a tag. So the Outfitters have already locked up most of the good areas that are public and now want to take more of our tags. With these way overpriced Preference Point fees and all the other hassles Wyoming is forcing on us, I'm starting to look at others states that welcome me and my family.
McKinney aka Hiker
Proverbs 3:5-6
 
Why don't all of you who reside in Wyoming contact G&F before any polls are done and give them input on your questions? Maybe use this and your other hunting and fishing sites to do your own polling so you can get a feel for what the majority really wants. Take the results to meetings with G&F and also draft a letter campaign to your state representatives. I still believe that a massive number of letters from average citizens will trump the special interest groups. Hard part is getting enough sportsmen to get involved. Good luck with your battles.
 
Smoke- Are you not paid for your "services" in WYSFW? If so, then is it not easy for your to become "involved" in wildlife issues? It sure is an easy way out to paint with a broad brush and tell the posters on this thread that they need to get involved. For example, I have travled to Wyoming on many occasions to assist with the winterkill survey. You, most likely, get paid to perform such acts.

You seem to miss the point on the guaranteed tags for outfitters. It has nothing to do with maintianing the outfitting lifestyle. It has to do with money. Plain and simple. If the outfitters are given a certain number of tags per unit/region then only those outfitters with areas in those units/regions can vie for the tags. This ensures that every outfitter would benefit, while the average non-resident would loose opportunity.

I hunt elk as a non-resident in an area where an outfitter is present. I would wager $10,000 that the outfitter would love to see public permits cut and more permits given to them, their camp, and their clients.
 
And you know the Outfitters will also want the majority of these tags to come from units with a lot of public land. The tags wouldn't have any value in units that are already leased up by the greed. I hate to say it, but serious non-wealthy hunters need to get organized and hire some attourneys. Thats the only thing that will scare/stop the greed that is spreading throughout the Western States. The states wouldn't ram these laws down the majority's throat if they knew they were going to have to pay/defend themselves in court.
 
What happens to all the Wyoming natives that have moved out-state how do they get tags to hunt with family members, I guess they better be rich so they can get a outfitter tag.Seem like the NR hunters gets it in the shorts again, If you don't know the outfitters Assoc. is only out for themselves you either blind or stupid, After they get done taking all the NR tags they can where do you think they will turn next,Then you wouldn't have NR hunters to help because they have losted all there tags to the outfitter assoc.Wildreness law is so outdated I hope it gets challenged soon, that will turn the tide for resident and non-residents both.Az I hope you are watching because that "we WOULDN'T take more tags for special groups is over already"
 
I'll offer a solution, although I think the whole idea is wrong. There needs to be legal wording that the outfitter tags can never, never go over 5% in any unit or region. This would eliminate outfitters "hogging" public land tags. You can't just write them a free check.
 
A couple important things to point out that some of you are missing.

This is not SFW's plan, it is WYOGA'S. They asked us to support their plan with a letter, and they state board agreed that it was something that we could support. Like Bob said the orginal proposal was last November and there were concessions made. This is not a fight that SFW wants to expend any energy on other than a letter or two, and public comment because we have a list of healthy goals. SFW Wyoming goals have not changed and remain
Wolf/Grizzly De-listing
Protecting elk feedgrounds
Revisiting game herd objectives
Those are what we put all are time and efforts into.
Two the only way to really increase the amount of tags and opportunity to sportsmen of Wyoming is increase game animals. Contary to nay-sayers on this post we will accomplish this quicker with working with stakeholders like WYOGA,and other industries, including conservation groups. If your disappointed because SFW is not wasting our time driving a wedge between sportsmen and outfitters your probably in the wrong camp anyway.
Remember for 25 years other conservation/enviromental (sometimes you need a microscope to tell one from the other) groups tried it their way with hard nose divisive tactics, anti-grazing, no predator managment, anti outfitting, and anti oil & gas. For some in Wyoming its what they've been taught all their lives, and I wouldn't expect them to consider any other options. For 20 years huntable populations of wildlife have slowly have suffered with no one addressing the root causes. The only thing these people and groups can say is ranchers, and outfitters are the root cause. We'll I don't care if these people and groups want to keep saying it but I'm not buying it anymore. SFW will try it our way and along the way we will probably make mistakes. I would hope our mistakes will be minimal compared to 20 years of mistakes made by the other groups that watched our elk, moose, and deer dwindle to near record low levels while they were too consumed with fighting other Wyoming residents to notice what was going on.
For the record I'm opposed to the non-resident wilderness rule. All it does is harass honest responsible sportsmen, and pits resident sportsmen against non-residents.
For the record I'm definataly not anti non-resident. Non residents pay 70+% of our G&F budget. The thing is we will sell our non-resident tags whether 2900 tags go to outfitters or not.
If your to poor to afford the tag you probably either have your priorities in the wrong place or you should be to work on bettering yourself through learning a trade, or going to college. I apply for every western state, and spend thousands a year on equipment and I'm a diesel mechanic and by no means rich. Hunting is my passion and I'll pay what they ask. You have to ask yourself do I want to pay to play? If the answer is no buy yourself a nice chess set.
The state board of SFW is made up of working men whose hunting and fishing is their passion. I don't know of anyone on the board that I would consider rich. The argument that SFW is just out for the rich guy is ludicris.
My Two cents,
Eric
 
Triple BB,

##### SADLER is a TRUE sportsmen advocate, and Micheal Moore is a Pro Gun Ultra conservative.
But your ideals and beliefs go hand in hand with old #####. Keep all the stake holders fighting amoungst themselves and then let the enviros in the back door to have their way with us.
You need his number I called him last week when gas prices went up.
Eric,
 
I am a Wyoming resident and really don't have anything against the outfitters. There is no doubt that SFW is and has done some good things for wildlife and sportsman in this state, so lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That being said, the whole idea that "tourism" and subsequent economic benefits will signficantly improve by setting aside licenses for outfitter clientel is speculation at best. Nothing has been presented to convince me that it will in anyway help ensure the healthy survival of my and my children's heritage either.

As stated above, and I will agree based on my conversations with outfitters and non resident hunters, the majority of those who hire outfitters eat and bunk with the outfitter. The others buy at the local grocery stores, or eat at the local restraunts, or use local motels. Which route directly feeds more money into the local economy?

feduptwo posted: "It improves Wyoming's economy, especially in small towns like Afton, GreyBull, and Dubious that depend on this trade to keep the doors open." As an Afton resident I can assure you that the doors will stay open here, even if there were no outfitted hunts available. Out of state hunters contribute much to our economy, and it is appreciated by most of us, but it is a small slice of the pie in the whole economic sceme of things.

Outfitting may be a heritage, as can be welding, mining,truck driving, teaching, etc... but it is not a part of most of our hunting heritage. It has been asked if I am not in support of this, what better solution do I have. I dont' propose to have a better one folks, but even in the complete abscence of another solution, a BAD idea is still a BAD idea. Some of you who support this whole ludicrious idea may actually believe that this will be for the "greater good", but there is no doubt that the only real benefits of set asides are for the pocket book of the outfitter and for the fortunate few who are wealthy enough to hire them.
 
Well said MMWB.

Feduptwo- You guys miss the point. You said, " This is not SFW's plan, it is WYOGA'S. They asked us to support their plan with a letter, and they state board agreed that it was something that we could support. This is not a fight that SFW wants to expend any energy on other than a letter or two, and public comment because we have a list of healthy goals." When you endorse this plan it becomes YOUR plan too. WYSFW is stating that they agree with and support the plan to reduce hunting opportunity for Non-Residents who wish not to hire an outfitter.

You also said, "The thing is we will sell our non-resident tags whether 2900 tags go to outfitters or not.
If your to poor to afford the tag you probably either have your priorities in the wrong place or you should be to work on bettering yourself through learning a trade, or going to college."

What a bunch of BS. First, if Wyoming will sell all the tags, then they should not change their system. The only reason to change their system would be for the $$$$$. Lining the pockets of private sector, special interest groups. (WY outfitters in this case.)

Secondly, If you can't afford a tag, blah blah blah. I can afford a tag, being college educated entrepreneur. I can also do the hunt on my own without the help of an outfitter. THE FACT IS: we, as nonresidents, do not want to HAVE TO hire an outfitter to draw tags which once were availible to us. Your statements are a load of BS.
 
There are approximately 7200 elk licenses available or set aside for non-resident hunters. The proposal is to reserve 2900 of the 7200 for non-residents which desire to obtain outfitter services. Their application will require that they have a licensed/registered outfitters signature in order to be eligible. Last year approximately 3100 elk hunters went with an outfitter, of those approximately 10% were residents of Wyoming. Approximately 4300 elk license will remain available for non-resident hunters.

While not all outfitters may come to town with their clients seeking meals and accommodations, most of the outfitters that provide those same services are hiring someone from local communities to prepare meals, etc for their camp(s). Their supplies are also purchased from Wyoming businesses. Some hunters also bring their entire family to Wyoming. While they are out hunting their spouse and children stay in hotels/motels, buy products from Wyoming businesses, and eat out. Some may also frequent local businesses which provide various forms of entertainment.

I'll state it again, "SFW WY supports efforts to stabilize our outfitting industry by working to resolve issues dealing specifically with non-resident license allocations."

This is what our letter stated.

This is how the letter concluded; "Please consider our support as you evaluate and explore this option before you."

So far, no one has come up with any viable alternative or even attempted to suggest another option. The Task Force was asked to look at several issues. I have full confidence that the Task Force will effectively review all options before them.

SFW WY still maintains our position and "supports efforts to stabilize our outfitting industry by working to resolve issues dealing specifically with non-resident license allocations."

It will be up to the Task Force to decide and recommend what actions actually take place. Rest assured that SFW WY will not allow this to negatively impact Wyoming's resident hunters.

Thus far, WYOGA's plan will have absolutely zero impact on resident hunters. It will allow non-resident hunters desiring outfitter services to compete with one another, leaving all of the do-it-yourselfers to compete for the remaining (60% of the total) available non-resident licenses.
 
mmwb seems to have shrunk the issue down perfectly. If SFW supports an issue brought to them by WYOGA then they need to explain the rationale. WYOGA in my mind is a consortium of people with a common goal to continue to make a living and they are politicing to gain a foothold like any other free-enterprise group. USO just tried this in AZ and that is why you are getting huge backlash. You contend your major issues are wolves, Elk & herd quality. Arizona's main goals now are a tad different in that we just fought and lost on the USO issue but the Reid bill saved us, bringing back states rights. You now have a precedent to fall back on with set asides for the outfitters thanks in part to what all of us average joes did to combat USO and support the reid bill. I guess this discussion seems to fit only for residents of Wyoming. Hopefully last nights meeting with SFW here in Arizona went well. Hopefully we are not modeling after Utah, Wyoming, Colorado........ Thanks, Allen Taylor......
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-21-05 AT 10:23AM (MST)[p]"Thus far, WYOGA's plan will have absolutely zero impact on resident hunters. It will allow non-resident hunters desiring outfitter services to compete with one another, leaving all of the do-it-yourselfers to compete for the remaining (60% of the total) available non-resident licenses."

So we Non-Resident hunters lose 40% of Our tags! Unless we hire a Outfitter.
I don't mind ponying up the money for a Non-Resident Tag, But I do not want to pony up money for a Outfitter. Outfitters in the State of Wyoming already gets the Best land in the entire State of Wyoming to hunt and we Non-Residents can't hunt there, Now we lose 40% of Our tags....Come on.....No State caters to their Outfitters more then the State of Wyoming. The Outfitters do not need any more tags! Most of there "Wilderness Areas" are already underdrawn! Look at the Leftover tags this year. Most of the tags leftover and undersubscribed are "Wilderness=Outfitter areas".

McKinney aka Hiker
Proverbs 3:5-6
 
Did you read my post? There were 3100 hunters that used outfitters last year. They are requesting 2900 licenses be available, so who is getting the cut? Non-residents haven't lost anything; there still remains approximately 7200 licenses available. 60% would be for those seeking to go-it-alone, 40% reserved for those seeking assistance.
 
If SFW does not say that this outfitter preference is unfair they will show thier true colors as a "only the rich will hunt" ORG.
It is bad enough that NM has it and the rich outfitters that benifit from it are the ones trying to sue to gain even more tags.
If SFW will not stand up against this they are showing they are in full support for groups like USO.
If any outfitter cannot stay in business because he cannot get enough hunters then it is time for him to choose another occupation. The States public tags should not be distributed in any matter that benifits any one group of hunters based on Income, Hunting skills, and if they need a babysitter or not.
If SFW supports this kind of thing then they will once again hurt themselves like they are doing in UT.
 
Why should there be ANY permits set aside for the guides/outfitters? they are a business just like any other business. they will succeed or fail based on demand and customers. if there is a demand for them then the customers will come if they fail it is because they were not needed. no other business can go before the legislature and loby to have have help so their business does not fail. if i decide to open a grocery store and nobody comes to buy my stuff will SFW support me in my efforts to lobby for cheaper prices on my goods so i can pass the savings on to potential customers? why should outfitters and guides (some who dont even live in wy) be given ANY kind of help with their business from a non biased state organization like the wyoming game and fish (or whatever they may be called)?
the argument that guides and outfitters are a part of wyoming's hunting heritage is crap. people have been hunting in america for hundreds of years....since the days of the caveman...the concept of charging people money to take them hunting is a relatively "new" concept in the last 75-50 years...which isnt long considering how long hunting itself has been around, and its not as though it is any older in wyoming...so you could technically use the same argument to support guides getting tags here in az...and that my freinds scares the hell out of me...one more reason i will never support in az
again....there should be NO permits ever set aside for a business...if the owner of said business cannot make it without help thats tough luck for him. why are guides/outfitters a special business that deserves any kind of treatment? and smokestick if you said they are wanting less tags than they had clients last year...why do they even care...what is the flaw in the current system that needs correcting?
az79
 
"For all of the negative comments not one person has came up with an alternative solution." smokestick

That's because it's a contrived problem. There was no problem hence no need for a bullshlt money and resource grab solution. You have framed, straw manned, the situation.

If the problem is boom/bust in outfitting I have a solution... BE COMPETITIVE in this thing we call CAPITALISM.

Don't want bust cycles? Put out the best product. Best guiding, best service. In short, do what every single other segment of our economy must do. COMPETE and win your dollars. Stop holding your hand out for a guaranteed income and then pull at some pathetic heartstrings suggesting your income is due you because of "heritage". BS. There are thousands of businesses with a heritage that is as old as this country and they aren't owed a subsidy and don't get one. They survive by being COMPETENT and efficient. They provide a good service and a good price and compete. When they fail to they go out of business. They don't ask the G to guarantee them business and then try to say it's legitimate because we're only screwing folks who don't live in your community.

The way we screw hunters from other states is how we can expect to come to be screwed. How we are willing to establish how game can be manipulated for special interests puts the entire camel in the tent. You can no longer assume that your interests are sacred after you set off on this road.

SFW = GAME PIMPS
 
"For all of the negative comments not one person has came up with an alternative solution." smokestick

That's because it's a contrived problem. There was no problem hence no need for a bullshlt money and resource grab solution. You have framed, straw manned, the situation.

If the problem is boom/bust in outfitting I have a solution... BE COMPETITIVE in this thing we call CAPITALISM.

Don't want bust cycles? Put out the best product. Best guiding, best service. In short, do what every single other segment of our economy must do. COMPETE and win your dollars. Stop holding your hand out for a guaranteed income and then pull at some pathetic heartstrings suggesting your income is due you because of "heritage". BS. There are thousands of businesses with a heritage that is as old as this country and they aren't owed a subsidy and don't get one. They survive by being COMPETENT and efficient. They provide a good service and a good price and compete. When they fail to they go out of business. They don't ask the G to guarantee them business and then try to say it's legitimate because we're only screwing folks who don't live in your community.

The way we screw hunters from other states is how we can expect to come to be screwed. How we are willing to establish how game can be manipulated for special interests puts the entire camel in the tent. You can no longer assume that your interests are sacred after you set off on this road.

SFW = GAME PIMPS

Reposted, reply was in wrong place.
 
Smokestick,
Why did your organization feel that it was necessary to write a letter of support? I think that it would have been much better for your org. pollitically to keep there nose out of it. What your support says to me is that your organization cares more about outfitters/money than the majority of sportsman's views. Why not rescend the letter, take no position, and let the outfitters association fight their own battles. Sometimes it takes a bigger man/organization to admit they made a mistake.
 
Why do you need to split it? Give 100% of the NR allotted tags to the NR's and let them decide if they want a guide.

Oh, and scrap the mandatory guide in wilderness areas BS. That's biggest crock of crap this side of Ted Kennedy.
 
i agree. sfw is supposed to be a voice of sportsman for that state, by writing a letter of support (before you surveyed the actual sportsman) you are telling the legislature "the sportsman of wy support this group and their efforts" so far nobody on here has supported it......
pull your support...
az79
 
"SFW WY supports efforts to stabilize our outfitting industry" Right there, you've hit the nail on the head. It is not about heritage, it certainly is not about equity, it is about changing regulations to cater to a business to make that business "more stable." I'm not aware of a shortage of outfitters. Those who run their business the most professionally and with the most competence are stable.

Most of us opposed to this are not opposed to outfitters. Who doesn't' respect a business that is run with the savvy to succeed? However, once we start using the majority?s resources to weigh in favor of a minority we are treading on thin ice. It happens a lot, but in the long run it is an unhealthy business practice, unhealthy policy practice, and an unhealthy political practice.

When the game and fish needs to decrease the number of licenses available in an area (do to habitat problems, the ever increasing number of predators, disease, etc...) which license allotments will be decreased? All of the nonresidents? The residents? A combination? ?and of the nonresidents, which will suffer the decline? All of them, or will there be a disproportionate number of non-set aside licenses to set aside licenses reduced?

This is a moral issue to many of us. You need to remember that a lot of us Wyomingites are proud of the fact that we are the Equality State. We as a whole like the fact that we have fewer regulations and less policy interference than probably any other state (excepting maybe Alaska). This affects Wyoming residents far beyond our rights and privileges to hunt. Most of us also have no doubt, that while this won't immediately affect residents' opportunities to draw tags, it sets a dangerous precedent for the future. We have enough problems with wolves already folks. We don't need to see policy and procedure let a few of the two legged variety in the private sector gain a foothold over the rest of us.

I'm not convinced there is a problem, so don't see a need for a solution. If the outfitting business has a problem, then like all businesses they will need to adjust their practice to deal with it. Why make one industry?s problem everyone else?s?
 
Smokestick and SFW,

You have blown it big time. Why change anything with the allocation of NR tags? Any NR who draws may seek the services of an outfitter. The only reason to change is support a group that doesn't need support from Gov.

I will never support SFW because of issues like this. Smokestick, thank you, you have made up my mind, I'm not sitting on the SFW fence anymore.

Fred Judson
Palisade, Colorado
Say No To SFW
 
Smokestick.

"So far, no one has come up with any viable alternative or even attempted to suggest another option."

This line is right out of Don Peay's SFW handbook. It is precisely what he says each time he raids Utah's public tag's more and more and more each year........Who else will pay for this program funding?.........Where else will it come from?........Do you have a viable alternative? It's best for regular joe if we just slip these out of his pocket and sell them to the wealthy.........Now bend over. It's best for everyone........trust me.


"Rest assured that SFW WY will not allow this to negatively impact Wyoming's resident hunters."

Sorry, but as others have mentioned, that is exactly what this welfare program will do.........negatively impact WY residents. Outfittter welfare = more outfitters = more leasing = less land available to residents.


"Thus far, WYOGA's plan will have absolutely zero impact on resident hunters. It will allow non-resident hunters desiring outfitter services to compete with one another, leaving all of the do-it-yourselfers to compete for the remaining (60% of the total) available non-resident licenses."

This statement is crafted in such a manner to imply that there will be no difference in the amount of tags going to outfitted nonresidents as there would be to DIYers. That is really deceptive, and could not be further from the truth. The new entitlement will guarantee 40% of the NR hunters must be guided. However, many NR's will apply in the regular draw, then decide to use an outfitter after they draw a tag, and you know it. Heck, every time I draw a tag somewhere I get bombarded with outfitter brochures. Thus, this proposed new program most definitely does qualify as welfare.

If SFW truly represents average joe hunter, how come everyone posting here except "5 Post EKB" (probably DP) is against this, both resident and nonresident?
 
Using your argument of a fair, competitive business, let's say you open a grocery store and fill it with most sought after, current trend items. You don't hold anything back; you invest in all of the bells and whistles, etc. Finally at last, the day comes for your doors to open; however, once you open your doors someone from the state stands at that door and randomly chooses whom they will let enter.

How long do you think you can run a business like that?

The current system doesn't differentiate between a good reputable outfitter and the worse excuse of an outfitter you can conger up.

Outfitters would now be competing among themselves for clients. This actually follows the line of reasoning that most have mentioned. Let them compete among themselves; sort out the good from the bad, etc.

Those that don't desire an outfitter still have the same chance as they have always had, they just won't be competing against those that want to be outfitted.

I'm through explaining SFW WY?s position as I have battles much more important than this one being waged on MM. Those that despise SFW so bad need to read the post about the National Elk Refuge (NER) recommendation to significantly reduce the number of elk on the refuge, as well as their decision to stop feeding elk during mild winters.

The Task Force will review their options and make their decision as based upon the information they have before them.

Thanks for the debate.
 
Total B.S. If I want to hire an outfitter, I will. Don't make 40% of the tags off limits just because someone is capable of doing in on their own. Corporate Welfare. Halliburton anyone?
 
way to cop out smokestick. your right there are good and bad outfitters out there...there are also good and bad mechanics, lawyers, gas stations, clothing stores, etc...they as a group do not get gov subsidies nor will gov subsidies solve the problem of crappy illigitamate outfitters (which im sure are WAY in the minority). as a group SFW needs to withdraw their support of this insane request from the WYOGA. sit this one out. if you really had the HUNTERS best interest in mind...why are you supporting a group of business owners. you also have not answered the question of what is the issue that needs to be corrected? where is the big bad problem that needs to be fixed by giving the guides guaranteed tags?
wyoming residents i hope you write the people you need to write and tell them that SFW is NOT the voice of hunters they claim to be and that you are against this.
also smokestick you continue to point out the good things SFW does for conservation etc...and thats great...thats not the issue, you cant mask sfw backing something the public is against with statements of good stuff youve done. you can put through all the conservation efforts you want, and we'll all be happy for you about that, we all appreciate that...but if you screw us on something like this...were not going to over look it becase of other things youve done. deal with the issue at hand and answer our questions instead of trying to put up a smokescreen of "but what about the good things we do".
az79
 
"You don't hold anything back; you invest in all of the bells and whistles, etc. Finally at last, the day comes for your doors to open; however, once you open your doors someone from the state stands at that door and randomly chooses whom they will let enter." smokestick

WTF are you talking about? The state issues tags to res and non res. They do NOT restrict folks from obtaining any guides services. Anyone can hire any guide for the tag and area served period that includes RESIDENTS. You are talking about the state not just getting out of the way of folks coming in the door, but the state FORCING them in your door, the same door they had a choice whether to enter the day before. This is the most retarded argument I've seen made so far. Why does a business deserve to have a guaranteed list of clients and worse WHY THE F ARE CLIENTS REQUIRED BY THE STATE TO USE A SERVICE THEY DON'T WANT?????

It's a free market. The state neither favors nor inhibits the success of a given outfitter. The state is agnostic on the issue and should be. Till now.

"The current system doesn't differentiate between a good reputable outfitter and the worse excuse of an outfitter you can conger up."

YES it does. By service and reputation. Bad outfitters go out of business. I didn't see a mention of how this set aside would IMPROVE the quality of lousy outfitters it only guarantees that they'll get clients. How does guaranteeing a larger pool of guide clients do ANYTHING to eliminate the lousy guide???? HELLO?

Want to promote better guides? How bout a Guide Feedback Center so that everyone who gets a guide reports fully on their experience and the state posts it all right on the net to see? How bout forcing significant cash surety bonds to keep the riff raff guider out and give greater recourse to clients who get screwed? At least you stopped usiing the word herritage, that was disgusting.

Lots of ways to help keep quality up in the guide biz and to help get their faces out there to the public that might use their service while still leaving the CHOICE to use any service to the paying public.

It's socialism and an abuse of public resource and trust.

At least you have a position. Though it's clear from watching you have your asz handed to you why you'll chose to no longer debate it. Good also to let folks see how the SFW whell turns, an object lesson I'd say.
 
bura nut,
youve been kinda quiet about this situation, where are your thoughts on it. i know you were pro AZ SFW, or at least willing to look at it, has this situation changed your mind at all?
id still like to see hwere you stand on THIS issue.
sorry to hear you didnt get drawn this year!
az79
 
>Did you read my post?
>There were 3100 hunters that
>used outfitters last year.
>They are requesting 2900 licenses
>be available, so who is
>getting the cut? Non-residents
>haven't lost anything; there still
>remains approximately 7200 licenses available.
> 60% would be for
>those seeking to go-it-alone, 40%
>reserved for those seeking assistance.
>
You outta run for office. Your stats are smoke and mirrors. Exluding the 10% figure you referenced, you note 3100 hunters used outfitters. That's 3100 people who drew tags. The 2900 who can afford the proposed set asides will take those and some other unknown number who can't afford the set asides will also use outfitters. The number using outfitters if this proposal becomes law could jump to 4000 - 5000 or more. As for finding a solution, the only problem that exists is the one created by the outfitters who feel the State owes them a living. Let'um go outfit in New Mexico if they feel they're entitled to welfare. This issue came up in the 90's and was thoroughly defeated. Its going to lose again if us hunters voice our opinions to our elected officials. Remember folks, part of Governor Freudenthal's election platform involved support for the hunter. It took a lot of us republicans to get him in office. Voice your opinion that if he supports this measure, you'll consider a different candidate next election...
 
"however, once you open your doors someone from the state stands at that door and randomly chooses whom they will let enter."
The difference here is that whom enters has been randomly choosen for some time. It is not something new. Alot of good outfitters have proven an ability--under the current system--to do fine by it.

"The current system doesn't differentiate between a good reputable outfitter and the worse excuse of an outfitter you can conger up."
This is true and niether will the proposed system. That is why when people shop around for a service, the wise ones check various options and get references...as in dealing with other businesses.

Smokestick, I don't despise the SFW. I strongly disagree with the stand on this issue. EVERYONE, let the decission makers know where you stand on this (use manners folks! lol).

http://wyoming.gov/governor/contactgovernor.asp
http://gf.state.wy.us/support/contactus/index.asp
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2005/members/rep.htm
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2005/members/sen.htm
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-21-05 AT 04:46PM (MST)[p]

"however, once you open your doors someone from the state stands at that door and randomly chooses whom they will let enter."
The difference here is that whom enters has been randomly choosen for some time. It is not something new. Alot of good outfitters have proven an ability--under the current system--to do fine by it.

"The current system doesn't differentiate between a good reputable outfitter and the worse excuse of an outfitter you can conger up."
This is true and niether will the proposed system. That is why when people shop around for a service, the wise ones check various options and get references...as in dealing with other businesses.

Smokestick, I don't despise the SFW. I strongly disagree with the stand on this issue. EVERYONE, let the decission makers know where you stand on this (use manners folks! lol).

http://wyoming.gov/governor/contactgovernor.asp
http://gf.state.wy.us/support/contactus/index.asp
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2005/members/rep.htm
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2005/members/sen.htm
 
I WONDER if the outfitters association in Wyoming is a donor to WY-SFW. Please Please tell us......it would make perfect sense why the feathers are all ruffled with the SFW-WY. At this time, I still have not seen the Arizona position statement for the proposed SFW but have been assured there will be no extra governors tags and no landowner tags but nothing is in writing and after watching this thread, I dont have any comfort level that say 1 or 2 years down the road, the same thing happening in Utah, Colorado and now Wyoming wont happen here. I dont see why we cant use MDF or SCI or some other long established group to handle the Political aspect. Hell I used to lobby years ago for a couple groups. I believe we just need a political person who reports through one of the established groups as to their progress on our collective major issues. Smokestick mentions he has more urgent issues in his state and quite frankly in Arizona we have our own issues that are obviously different than Wyoming and are important to our state residents and non-residents. Thanks, Allen Taylor......
 
Although I don't like lawyers I can see a class action lawsuit coming on this one. This has nothing to do with commerce and everything to do with discriminatory allocation of public resources. Allen, I am still going to join SFW just so I can shake hands and count my fingers. We need a few people to get inside and on the board. Sneaky but it could prevent the RFW type end runs from happening. I am changing my handle to "deep throat". If they are not lying and have no interest in screwing with tags then I will publicly apologize and support them well.
 
Open up "ALL" Wilderness Areas to Non-Residents, without a guide and we will negotiate.
Right now we have very little chance of getting a tag in a good area, so lets do away with the Non-Resident "Wilderness Area" Law that states we must have a guide. Many of the areas are underdrawn every year and the outfitters are not using all their tags anyway. So let us draw and hunt these areas.
I'm not sure how the mix (resident vs. non-resident) is now but something like this.
65% Resident tags
35% Non-Resident tags
0% Outfitters tags
Open up all Wilderness areas, No strings attached.
60% Resident tags
30% Non-Resident tags
10% Outfitter tags

What do you guys think?

McKinney aka Hiker
Proverbs 3:5-6
 
>Did you read my post?
>There were 3100 hunters that
>used outfitters last year.
>They are requesting 2900 licenses
>be available, so who is
>getting the cut? Non-residents
>haven't lost anything; there still
>remains approximately 7200 licenses available.
> 60% would be for
>those seeking to go-it-alone, 40%
>reserved for those seeking assistance.
>

Smokestick you are so full of it. It is your rational that is ruining hunting as a heritige for the common man. All you care about is the money.
Let me fill you in on a little secret as if you didnt already know...
Outfitters like USO play this same game in NM where they already have the same Slimy outfitter welfare system. I actually called Taulman once to voice my concerns and here his side of the whole AZ thing. HE ADMITTED that he played both sides of the fence in the nonres pool in NM. He studied the odds and put in his clients in both the unguided and duided pool to gain the most odds. Its a bunch of crap, these guys will put in thier clients and also have them apply without the signiture to get the most odds. So you want to make it fair?? make it so if you didnt have the outfitter signature you cannot hire one after the draw. So wake up, your numbers are way off, WY outfitters will do the same as Taulman does.
You and your SFW money grubbing outfitter buddies are digging your own hole, I hope you AZ boys see what AZSFW will become in a few years if you let them corrupt your hunting world.
Yea, get involved, i was on the phone with the director of the F&G of AZ today voicing my concerns about SFW.... I hope you all do the rest.
A wise man here once said "follow the money"
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-21-05 AT 06:20PM (MST)[p]>Did you read my post?
>There were 3100 hunters that
>used outfitters last year.
>They are requesting 2900 licenses
>be available, so who is
>getting the cut? Non-residents
>haven't lost anything; there still
>remains approximately 7200 licenses available.
> 60% would be for
>those seeking to go-it-alone, 40%
>reserved for those seeking assistance.
>
Smokestick you are so full of it. It is your rational that is ruining hunting as a heritige for the common man. All you care about is the money.
Let me fill you in on a little secret as if you didnt already know...
Outfitters like USO play this same game in NM where they already have the same Slimy outfitter welfare system. I actually called Taulman once to voice my concerns and here his side of the whole AZ thing. HE ADMITTED that he played both sides of the fence in the nonres pool in NM. He studied the odds and put in his clients in both the unguided and duided pool to gain the most odds. Its a bunch of crap, these guys will put in thier clients and also have them apply without the signiture to get the most odds. So you want to make it fair?? make it so if you didnt have the outfitter signature you cannot hire one after the draw. So wake up, your numbers are way off, WY outfitters will do the same as Taulman does.
You and your SFW money grubbing outfitter buddies are digging your own hole, I hope you AZ boys see what AZSFW will become in a few years if you let them corrupt your hunting world.
Yea, get involved, i was on the phone with the director of the F&G of AZ today voicing my concerns about SFW.... I hope you all do the rest.
A wise man here once said "follow the money" Keep on spewing your babble please! i love seeing you kill SFW all in one swift post of crap, thinking we are all idiots and your the smart one.
 
""Outfitters would now be competing among themselves for clients. This actually follows the line of reasoning that most have mentioned. Let them compete among themselves; sort out the good from the bad, etc.

Those that don't desire an outfitter still have the same chance as they have always had, they just won't be competing against those that want to be outfitted""

Christ smokestick, you expect us to believe the outfitters have nothing to gain? they want to hurt themselves? Like i said, they want a garenteed amount of tags, and then they will also have the rest of their clients put in for to compete with the average Joes.
Call Taulman, he will tell you thats what he does and that is why his tag service is so great, he figures it all out for you.... Please, wait a minute, i hear a few more coffin nails being hammered in for SFW
Follow the money
 
I'm sorry but your not doing very well at spinning this. Your comparison to a grocery store is weak. Your right, the state is randomly choosing who gets tags and no one except residents of that state should have any preference because they patronize a certain business. Your advocating that the draws are not random. You say everyone will still have the same chance at drawing an elk tag. So a guided hunter has 2900/3100, or over 90% chance, and the rest of us nonresidents have a ~30% of a general elk tag. And what about nonredident deer and antelope tags. Do 40% of nonresidents need to hire an oufitter to hunt an antelpoe?
 
I am a non-resident hunter who has hunted in Wyoming on about 8 occasions in the past 15 years. I have been thinking about crossing out Wyoming for any future hunting due to Wyoming going the way of other states and making hunting a Big Money deal on tags, preference points, and the fact of hiring an outfitter if I want to try and draw a tag in a wilderness area of the state.
From reading these posts, and based on numerous conversations with Wyoming residents, I would never consider joining SFW, and if I was already a member, I would cancel my dues and turn my back on them.
I have to hand it to "Smokestick", he does know how to "bait and Switch", change the subject, or outright fail to listen to the average hunter in Wyoming whom he is trying to get to join SFW.
His supporting the Outfitters Assoc. flys in the face of every hunter, resident or non-resident. By giving more tags to the outfitters will allow them more money to buy up hunting leases off of ranchers. When this happens, that is more land that will be closed off to residents and non-residents unless they are willing to pay the big bucks to hire a outfitter.
None of us hunters should be made to pay for this, it is cutting our own throat. If "Smokestick" was truly for the average hunter he would drop the supporting of "welfare checks" to the outfitters, since he does not appear to want to change his stand on SFW support of the outfitters, he has shown his true colors and they fly with the big money, not with the average hunter in Wyoming. You can bet your bottom dollar, if a hard winter hits and you have a big kill off of animals, the tags for non-resident and resident hunter will be cut back before they get into the outfitter tags. The only way that I would ever considering joining SFW in Wyoming, would be if they chose to fight the free allotment to outfitters, and requiring that non-residents have to use a guide service to hunt in the wilderness area. They also should be fighting to stop outfitters and ranchers from closing off access to public land for hunters, Hell I would prefer to see the Game Dept. money go to local ranchers for allowing access across their property to the public land they enclose. This would better benifit all hunters instead of giving more tags to outfitters.
I could go on, but I do not have the time, besides it seems that most of the members here have good common sense and have already seen though "Smokestick's" smokescreen. I do intend to use the web sites given in several above posts and make contact with officials in Wyoming and let them know what my feelings are concerning hunting in your great state.

RELH
 
I would be willing to donate $100 to a legal fund to fight this Horsesh##t. If we (the majority) could get organized and have the threat of legal action this would go away because they would not have a chance in hell of winning this case in court. I have nothing against outfitters or people that choose their services. But if I was offered a free fully guided hunt on my unit H deer hunt this fall I would turn it down. Well I might let them haul my buck out after I shoot it.
 
I sit and read the arguements, and just have to think I wish all these sportsmen would have gotten as fired up about wolves, feed grounds, predator control, and habitat improvments imagine the force we'd have. We'd be unstoppable. Unfortuantly we have to continue fighting amoung the involved stake holders.
I have to wonder if will be this fired up because there zero opportunity for NR and residents alike because there no surplus game.
Only time will tell
Eric,
 
Eric: Thanks for all your input. I would like to mention that here in Arizona I can speak for a couple of the posters and can assure you over the last three years we have been FIRED UP OVER re-introduction of the Mexican grey wolf, fired up over lion problems in Sabino canyon/elsewhere, fired up about habitats all over the state, fired up over broken water tanks and we fixed them, fired up over the Predator Study of the 3-bar area showing how a reduction in predators especially through drought will increase our game herds, fired up over the Kaibab and Arizona Deer Association called a meeting with AZGFD and other stake holders to rectify the situation. I guess I know whats happening in Arizona and see what the average joe is trying to do but I cant speak for other states..... Thanks, Allen Taylor......
 
i agree allen, people will get fired about anything they feel strongly about...and most of us feel pretty strong about those issues.
az79
 
After reading this entire post I have come to the following conclusions:

1.) Smokestick, you've got this game figured out. Sell your position to the residents by "preserving their rich hunting tradition", while allowing the wealthy non-residents pay the bills. I don't know you, but based on your posts you change your views in order to follow the money. You create problems where none exist. Your short sighted approach to maximize wildlife profit in the short term, will be play a significant role in the reduction of new hunter recruitment. Why not use SFW as a tool to tap into the resources of the State's General Fund ($700 million in surplus), rather than gouging non-resident "Average Joe's"? How's that for a different idea on how to raise revenue?

2.) The issue of allocating the non-resident tags is already a done deal. Look at the issue of preference points. Wyoming's legislature approved the fees to be $75 for sheep, but the Commission approved a $100 fee. What do you think they'll do when the can see a "market-based" $2,000 elk permit? You can bet that they can also see increased revenue from their non-resident bonus points if they reduce opportunity by a whopping 40% (Once again, Smokestick sees this % as insignificant). As usual, follow the money.

3.) This post is a prime example of the fall-out from Senator Reid's legislation. When a government agency has absolute power they often become corrupt. Kind of ironic that the rider on a bill against USO will wind up serving them...only the wealthy need apply.

Remember, if hunting becomes so exlusive that only a small group can participate, it will die out over time. Look at photos from any of the conventions, and see all the gray. We as a group are aging quickly. If costs are too high, younger people will not be able to participate.
 
As an interesting side note...Ya'll need to check out the thread that was started by smokestick on the "Future of Hunting" forumn....
 
man, as a nobody who has never hunted wyoming and doesn't plan to, it just makes me sick to think what hunting has become. i mean, you can't even get the tag you want and go hunt without somebody thinking they need to hold your hand. who in the hell do these people think they are. and why do they think that they are gods gift to hunting. one things for sure if it ever comes to that here in utah. I will be trading in my bows and guns for golf clubs, or a motorcycle or something cause i will be damned if i would put up with this b.s.

whew, i feel better,
coby
 
feduptwo your right more should be done with those issues. So tell me what has the Wyoga did on all those issues. What is to stop them from leasing land(ranch land, wintering grounds) out of the wilderness areas and not letting the resident hunter hunt it. But wait this isn't going to impact the resident hunter who are you bullshitting. I know that the majority of Wyoming hunters will be seeing the truth and saying hell no. What happens to those who move out-state and want to come home on hunt with family I guess they don't count the get to jump into the 40% pool or maybe hire a "outfitter" tell how that don't impact the local hunter.

What does it take to become a licensed outfitter in Wyoming?

How come in States that have huge blocks of wilderness you don't have to hire a outfitter for hunting but in Wyoming you do(unless your fishing then you don't)
I guess fisherman aren't going to get lost or get eat. Man that some funny stuff, If the outfitters assoc can get a law like that, you real think they need your help in sticking it to the NR hunter, It just easier to fight a big group then several little ones.

Wheres does MDF and RME groups falling this fight.
If this was sure a good deal I think you all would be standing arm in arm.
 
I really appreciate how Wyoming has and obviously in the future going to kick the teeth out of all the non resident hunters who have provided the income to them in the past. You can start with the moose/sheep preference points and continue right through to the outfitter allocations. Smokestick you talk about hunting heritage, apparantely since I'm not from Wyoming mine doesn't matter. You tell us to stand together, but you are missing the point and continue to. The really passionate hunters who pay for all of their RMEF, MDF and other conservative group fees are usually non resident hunters somewhere. You continue to say that non residents still have the same chances, well that is not accurate because I have to save my scheckles all year to afford the un-guided hunt in your fine state. I'm really disappointed in the continued beating up of non resident hunters in the western states. It looks like colorado is looking into re-allocating the tag numbers and where are they looking to take from, you guessed it the non resident. It kills me every year when I pay thousands, yes thousands in federal tax which some of that money goes to the forest service and BLM, however I am not able to enjoy my favorite hobby hunting because I'm an illegal allien from Oregon.

We need to start a foundation called the non-resident hunters foundation to fight against the states that discriminate and protect our rights because it obvious that it is not happening. In the Colorado case on the re-allocation they represented non residents on the board by using the outfitters association. That is like the wolves guarding the sheep. In the last year since the AZ ruling non-residents, except in NV the states have been attacking NR hunters and I don't think it is going to stop. I am a frustrated hunter who enjoys to go to Montana and Wyoming and hunt with FRIENDS who are residents of those states. But apparantly I shouldn't have that right.

I'm glad to see the passion in most of you, it is the only thing that we have to protect ourselves.
 
"We need to start a foundation called the non-resident hunters foundation to fight against the states that discriminate and protect our rights because it obvious that it is not happening."

lostinoregon, I believe the Sportsman's Alliance is the group you describe. They funded several lawsuits defending nonresident hunting rights in the past, including the WY wilderness issue possibly. Don't know where they stood on USO. I think they are mainly a legal fund foundation. After WY I'm going to look into that bunch more seriously. Beats the hell out of SFW........haha.
 
I have an idea, can someone go to Wyoga's website or somehow find out if they are a non-profit organizatin. If they are, then if they gave money to SFW it would be public information that you could find out. I asked on my post #76 or so if "WYOGA is a Financial donor" to SFW and I really think they must be............... Thanks, Allen Taylor......
 
As was noted on a different thread, there was a front page article on this matter in Sunday's Casper Star Tribune. As expected, Smokestick was in his element spouting rhetoric for the outfitter industry. However, tourism dollars do get our elected officials attention. Negative press by everyone will help our cause. You can send letters to the Casper Star Tribune letters to the editor section at:
Casper Star Tribune
Box 80
Casper, WY 82602.
-
or you can e-mail a letter to the editor at:
[email protected]
-
You must include your phone number and physical address. Their e-mail system doesn't take attachments, so your letter must be written in the body of your e-mail or cut and paste your letter into the body of the e-mail. There is a 350 word limit.
 
What are founders thoughts, SFW sponcers the "future of hunting"? Brian we know you like G with out someone holding your hand. Bob lets see what the 10 year average is on the total number of outfitter hunts, and tell them if they want guarantees we want to be able to hunt in the wilderness areas. Russ
 
IMO, I hate to see my chance to hunt lessened because of guide allocated tags. I don't do guided hunts, like to do it on my own.

I also don't think it's right for there to be wilderness that we can't hunt ourselves.

I also feel shafted that non-resident tags were cut in G this past year, yet it's still unlimited for residents.

The bottomline is, non-resident hunters are easy to pick on because we are the minority. I think Guides and Outfitters are on the side of non-residents in the tag allocation battles, but Guide Allocated Tags aren't the answer in my opinion.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
 
Brian,
Thanks for your stance and I agree with you.
"Guide Allocated Tags aren't the answer! in my opinion"

Welfare breeds complacency.
Good Outfitters will continue to grow with referral and repeat business and Bad Outfitters will go away.

McKinney aka Hiker
Proverbs 3:5-6
 
I'm totally against giving tags to the wyoga, They also want to be able to still draw hunters from the general pool too if they decide they want to be outfitted, so it not just a 3000 tags deal it can jump over that. I think with the points system coming to Wyoming this will be non-issue. I talked with Smokestick last night and it was a good talk did I change his mind maybe on somethings other things no, But I have to give this to him he was willing to listen for 1 1/2 hours on the phone, We threw around alot of different idea's some was shot down others will be talked about to see how they fare, But the good part is that he does see where we are going with the no tags thing, I still think that if the majoraity want it it will happen if it is shoot down he wouldn't lose any sleep over it, this just one of the problem the SFW is going to be dealing with, I can see coming up on the horizon is the wilderness issue,This one is going to be huge,Landowner tags(selling of) walk-in program.


I would love to hear from Wyoga( any-one) why I can go in the backcountry in the summer with my packhorses and fish birdwatch, hike, camp and I don't need a outfitter BUT if I'm hunting I need one there to hold my hand. I sure that their are a few of ya that read this forum please explain how this is:
Here's a Exp: for you if 4 guys was going back into the backcountry on a guided hunt and it cost $4000, if you 4 guy pooled your money and paid a lawyer instead "if" you got the ticket I think you would be ahead in the money game. I know I would rather put my money into a good lawyer and see how it come's out.
 

Similar threads

wstrntines
And you think Utah non residents are the issue
Replies
99
Views
4k
Longun
Longun
Founder
  • Poll
Should Governor Type Tags Exist? (Poll)
Replies
47
Views
2k
elkhunter81
elkhunter81
callsalot
Best Western Big Game State To Retire In???
2
Replies
118
Views
6k
Wyo_Roadhunter
Wyo_Roadhunter

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

A9A86E71-D7A1-48C9-87E2-EA237E2BE156.jpeg
2010 buck2.JPG
357B44B3-D79E-428B-81A0-1C1EAE6C917D.jpeg
Screenshot_20230310_145221_Chrome~2.jpg
Just a big typical
IMG_1436.jpg
BAD4D63B-CFFE-4CCE-9308-7E4837120CB9.jpeg
IMG_2261.JPG
2004 Muley.jpg
IMG_3227.JPG
IMG_20191010_131845_239.jpg
Screenshot_20220312-182218_Gallery.jpg
Back
Top Bottom