Another Survey.....optional extra License fee for Residents

A lot of folks on here, including myself, have stated that they are willing to pay additional license fee for Wyo big game, fishing, etc. Since the G&F license fee is online, what I am wondering if it would be a viable change for Wyo G&F to implement an optional fee schedule for Resident licenses (Non-res are gouged plenty already).

Of course have their base license fee, but have an optional tab (similar to setup for Search & Rescue, Access Yes Program?) for those that are willing to give more for a certain (or all) license(s). (Put our $$$ where our mouth is.)

For example, along with big game, I love to bird hunt. I have the time & places to hunt now. The bird license is $16, which I personally find is quite cheap. I would personally pay $100 for a bird licence, but also understand that a guy/gal with 3 young hunters still in the nest or someone on a strict budget couldn't swing anything near that much. Hence, the optional extra fee.

Ditto for elk. Personally, I would certain go well beyond the 57 bucks for an elk license, which is about 15 gallons of diesel at last fill-up.

I don't think this system would be difficult to add to their on-line licensing system and may throw a few bucks into the G&F coffer.

Thoughts?

If you look into the two optional ones you mentioned that have been in the system a long time, I think you will find that neither one gets a decent percentage of the overall number of applicants giving much of anything to either of them. IMHO many people say they are willing to give more to something like you're talking about, but when push comes to shove and it's time to cough it up it doesn't happen that often.

LAST EDITED ON May-14-18 AT 12:33PM (MST)[p]Topgun, I hear what you're saying and we may just be a bunch of cheap arses in Wyoming (my words), but every little bit helps with G&F.

Also, if residents are not willing to pony up a few more bucks via this proposed system, or a license fee hike, we might "get what we don't pay for" and end up with less resident tags and more non-resident tags in order to make the G&F economics work. I was just floating a suggestion with my original post on this, but such a system may indicate to G&F a willingness (or lack thereof) to pay additional fees for our recreation.

Maybe G&F needs to get the IRS to consider an optional extra license fee a "donation" and make it tax-deductible? (I'll work on that in my upcoming retirement!)

Post Script: It does appear that such a hypothetical "license" donation to G&F would in fact be tax deductible since it is for a "public purpose" per fed tax code. Also, donations to Search & Rescue & Access Yes appear to be deductible. Just FYI.

Teepee,

I see where you are going with your idea and I don't think it is a bad one by any means. I just don't think it would help much. I think people would be even less apt to give more if others aren't. I think most that give to Access Yes do so because they use the program and they are fine doing it when others don't because the know not everyone uses it. Even though I agree license fees are crazy low I don't know how likely I would be to pay more than everyone else. Also, I am not sure how much more money the G&F needs.

Personally, I would like to see license fees be assigned a price according to how much it costs to manage that species. And yes I am talking about sheep and grizzly bears. People need to appreciate the cost of managing all the species. We are all fine with it costing millions of dollars to manage bighorns and we are willing to wait decades to hunt them but we still want a $152 sheep tag. Seems shortsighted, but hey that's my opinion.

And BTW, I think Access Yes donations should be an opt out thing. I think the default should be, "Yes, I want to contribute" and it should be set to $20. If you don't want to then you should have to tick the box "No". Instead of the other way around. It has been shown that this will increase the amount donated. But this is an idea for another thread.