I hardly ever post on here although I do enjoy reading the info here and I'm not one for rumors, but I just got a text from a friend who was visiting with a guy in the WY Game and Fish and he said this is the last year for general deer tags state wide. Everything will be a draw next year. I'm assuming he's speaking about resident hunter tags. Anyone else hear anything of this yet?
Future WY deer tag rumors
- Thread starter ELKLOVER
- Start date
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,451
Making a few more units LQ deer?
OR
Going statewide muley and whitetail LQ all units??
Robb
OR
Going statewide muley and whitetail LQ all units??
Robb
I can't see that happening on a statewide basis with all the uproar by many residents when they even talk about a couple of the units down in G & H going that way! With nothing even proposed right now, I don't see how that could be accomplished in a short time for the 2013 seasons. They will be discussing license fee increases at meetings coming up soon, according to a blurb on the G&F website, and they want them to take effect for the 2013 seasons if they can swing it.
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
ELKLOVER,
I think the WY G&F guy might have been talking specifically about a particular region rather than the entire state. It is highly unlikely that Wyoming would go to a statewide draw next year as it has not been discussed at all.
TOPGUN is correct that the WY G&F is seeking a cost of living license fee increase as according to the G&F fish, they will be broke by July 2015. In fact, WY G&F is seeking to increase their annual funding by $8-10 million just to stay on top of things.
Oilcan,
If they follow past license fee increases, they will be looking for a 20% increase across the board. I have told the G&F Commission that the group which I represent has had discussions about the concern that non-resident license fees are getting too high. John Emmerich, Deputy Director for the G&F Department told me not to worry about it as we still have way more applicants than licenses. He also stated that he felt our fees will remain inline with what other states are charging.
I am more anxious about the independent company being contracted to identify alternative funding mechanisms for the G&F Department. I was told that at some time other groups will be asked to participate but I am concerned that the decisions and direction will be made before anyone gets to see what options are really on the table.
I think the WY G&F guy might have been talking specifically about a particular region rather than the entire state. It is highly unlikely that Wyoming would go to a statewide draw next year as it has not been discussed at all.
TOPGUN is correct that the WY G&F is seeking a cost of living license fee increase as according to the G&F fish, they will be broke by July 2015. In fact, WY G&F is seeking to increase their annual funding by $8-10 million just to stay on top of things.
Oilcan,
If they follow past license fee increases, they will be looking for a 20% increase across the board. I have told the G&F Commission that the group which I represent has had discussions about the concern that non-resident license fees are getting too high. John Emmerich, Deputy Director for the G&F Department told me not to worry about it as we still have way more applicants than licenses. He also stated that he felt our fees will remain inline with what other states are charging.
I am more anxious about the independent company being contracted to identify alternative funding mechanisms for the G&F Department. I was told that at some time other groups will be asked to participate but I am concerned that the decisions and direction will be made before anyone gets to see what options are really on the table.
Smokestick---I have no idea why that previous post was put up on here when we're trying to have some constructive criticism on something that has nothing to do with that! I know you and I have had our disagreements on transparency and the Utah tag deal, but I think we agree on most things that are for the good of Wyoming, as well as for all of us present and future hunters. I'm going to be out in Wyoming for 9 weeks again starting the middle of September and maybe we can sit down for a meal somewhere and discuss things. Worland is the nearest decent-size town in case you might be near there or have anything going on between the middle of September and when I head back here in early November!
All that coal, oil and gas revenue and they are going broke? Can't say I'm happy to see that we pay for Wy State budget from production on federal lands only to have them turn around and gouge us again to hunt federal lands.
Wy has no state income taxes, right? I bet they are proud about keeping the lid on taxes. So what do you call their fees we NR pay? It's sure seems like a tax for us we pay at the pump and in our gas & electric bills. They are gouging us like crazy and they are doing it with our own land we already pay for. What a scam.
Wy has no state income taxes, right? I bet they are proud about keeping the lid on taxes. So what do you call their fees we NR pay? It's sure seems like a tax for us we pay at the pump and in our gas & electric bills. They are gouging us like crazy and they are doing it with our own land we already pay for. What a scam.
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
MAT,
WY G&F has all of their money separate from the general fund. Currently, WY G&F Department obtains approximately 6% of their budget from general fund dollars.
Had you read my post, you would have noticed that we are concerned about non-resident fees as well, even though our group is predominantly Wyoming residents, we also realize that 60% of the G&F budget is derived from non-resident license fees, preference points, etc. Obviously, we are concerned about license fees for non-residents getting too high. As a resident, our fee structure is pretty good and I believe we do have some of the best hunting out west.
I just looked at a proposed bill which will transfer legislative oversight of license fees increases to the WY G&F Commission and establish a mechanism whereby an annual license fee can be assessed. The license fee increase would be based upon annual cost of living increases. Here is the bill (if the link will work): http://legisweb.state.wy.us/interimCommittee/2012/13LSO-0099W1.pdf
Let me know what you think
WY G&F has all of their money separate from the general fund. Currently, WY G&F Department obtains approximately 6% of their budget from general fund dollars.
Had you read my post, you would have noticed that we are concerned about non-resident fees as well, even though our group is predominantly Wyoming residents, we also realize that 60% of the G&F budget is derived from non-resident license fees, preference points, etc. Obviously, we are concerned about license fees for non-residents getting too high. As a resident, our fee structure is pretty good and I believe we do have some of the best hunting out west.
I just looked at a proposed bill which will transfer legislative oversight of license fees increases to the WY G&F Commission and establish a mechanism whereby an annual license fee can be assessed. The license fee increase would be based upon annual cost of living increases. Here is the bill (if the link will work): http://legisweb.state.wy.us/interimCommittee/2012/13LSO-0099W1.pdf
Let me know what you think
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
TOPGUN,
Not a problem, the post wasn't from you and reflects someone's opinion. Working for WY SFW, I have developed a pretty think layer of hide.
I am concerned as whatever comes out from this group could redefine or alter the NAM. You and I may see things differently but I don't think either of us would like to see the NAM changed significantly. If that model is opened up and altered, who knows what the outcome will be? In 2007, WY SFW worked very closely with the G&F to obtained some non-traditional funding for the Department. The former G&F Director, Terry Cleveland, had a fight with one of the conservation groups because they did not want to allow WY SFW to participate. Terry stood his ground and we were invited to participate. What is proposed now is something entirely different and raises some concerns. If the ground work is laid and then others are allowed to participate, we might have something we really don't want to see thrown out to the public for discussion. What I have learned about the Delphi Technique makes me concerned, to say the least.
Not a problem, the post wasn't from you and reflects someone's opinion. Working for WY SFW, I have developed a pretty think layer of hide.
I am concerned as whatever comes out from this group could redefine or alter the NAM. You and I may see things differently but I don't think either of us would like to see the NAM changed significantly. If that model is opened up and altered, who knows what the outcome will be? In 2007, WY SFW worked very closely with the G&F to obtained some non-traditional funding for the Department. The former G&F Director, Terry Cleveland, had a fight with one of the conservation groups because they did not want to allow WY SFW to participate. Terry stood his ground and we were invited to participate. What is proposed now is something entirely different and raises some concerns. If the ground work is laid and then others are allowed to participate, we might have something we really don't want to see thrown out to the public for discussion. What I have learned about the Delphi Technique makes me concerned, to say the least.
SMOKESTICK---After some thought, I think I now understand why WB made that post. He's probably worried that this independent outfit that's going to look for alternative sources of revenue for the G&F will suggest going to something like Utah has that a lot of us are fighting right now! I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong if he gets back on and reads this thread. I have gone over the proposed bill you put the link up for and that's exactly what I wish they would have been able to get through years ago. Thanks! I hope it gets up for hearings and I'm pretty sure all NRs would support that type of a fee structure change and would hope the residents would too. Have you had a discussion on this with your WYSFW brotherhood and, if so, do they have a stance on the Bill as of yet?
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
TOPGUN,
I agree, that is how I interpreted his comments. However, that is not my concern. I am more concerned about how this could change the NAM. Aren't you concerned as well?
The WY SFW brotherhood, as you put it, has not discussed this bill. Therefore, I am hesitant to saying anything about it until they provide some direction.
I agree, that is how I interpreted his comments. However, that is not my concern. I am more concerned about how this could change the NAM. Aren't you concerned as well?
The WY SFW brotherhood, as you put it, has not discussed this bill. Therefore, I am hesitant to saying anything about it until they provide some direction.
WB and SMOKESTICK---I have no idea what that independent group will come up with or what they will look at. Whether they do it on their own or someone from an organization that likes the Utah way contacts them and proposes it are both possible. I am absolutely very concerned any time the NAM has a chance to be tinkered with in what meay be a negative way. I don't know why the term "brotherhood" came out in my post and I certainly did not mean it in an offensive way! I would join that brotherhood in a heartbeat, just as I've mentioned before, if I could be assured that there would be no tag schemes offered up or pushed in Wyoming. I do have a quick question for Bob and it's to Bob as an individual, rather than as an employee of the SFW. The question is how you can be so concerned that the NAM could be changed and yet seem to be such a vocal proponent for a parent organization that profits and has a system that is so far from what the NAM professes? Is the WYoming chapter that employs you that far apart from the philosophy of the Utah parent organization? If it is, I again would certainly join the group, but would wish that the name was changed and disaffiliated with Utah! I promise that whateever the answer is that this discussion will stay civil!
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,451
LAST EDITED ON Jul-30-12 AT 05:13PM (MST)[p]So if it does go up 20% for non-ressy's
2013 non-ressy fees would look something like this then.....
Elk $720.00/$1320.00
Deer $396.00/$684.00
Antelope $348.00/$636.00
Moose $1,704.00
Sheep $2,724.00
Mountain Goat $2,604.00
I am not sure if the 20% would also be reflected in the 'Points' cost.
Robb
2013 non-ressy fees would look something like this then.....
Elk $720.00/$1320.00
Deer $396.00/$684.00
Antelope $348.00/$636.00
Moose $1,704.00
Sheep $2,724.00
Mountain Goat $2,604.00
I am not sure if the 20% would also be reflected in the 'Points' cost.
Robb
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
PleaseDear,
Every license fee, preference point, stamp, etc. would go up as it did in 2007; resident & non-resident alike.
Every license fee, preference point, stamp, etc. would go up as it did in 2007; resident & non-resident alike.
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
TOPGUN,
I am concerned about the NAM and any changes that may alter how it has worked in the past. I do have a degree in wildlife management from Utah State University, so I do understand the North American Model of Wildlife Management (or Conservation) as some refer to it.
Where you and I disagree is that I believe SFW (even in Utah) has not violated the NAM as everything has been handled thru the current public processes. From the discussions I have seen and read here on MM, it seems apparent to me that some people missed a few or failed to attend some key meetings pertaining to how the UDWR implements the Conservation and Convention licenses (or tags). To blame SFW (in Utah) for participating in a UDWR program that has been vetted and ultimately approved by the public makes no sense to me. Furthermore, to see all of the attention and negativity directed at SFW (including other state entities, that are in fact separate from Utah) while hardly even touching or criticizing MDF makes no sense either. From my perspective, it seems a bit hypocritical; especially given that we (myself included) now know that (UTAH) SFW has been telling the truth about their inability to force MDF to comply with others demands.
In my opinion, Hawkeye is attempting to do what should be done. If sportsmen do not like something in particular, they should engage in good debate with the UDWR (or their own state agency) to get the questions and resolutions they desire. That is the public trust part of the NAM and the key to resolving disputes among sportsmen. Vilifying one group to make one's point, in my opinion, hurts us all. We must realize that it is unlikely that we will always get what we want. Sometimes it takes multiple attempts until we can reach an outcome or solution we all can agree upon.
I have been gone from Utah since early 2000 and have not followed things, but what I have read on MM and elsewhere, it appears that some people desire a change. However, it appears that even according to the Director of the UDWR, both MDF & SFW have been compliant with his understanding of the law. No one has violated any laws; yet, it would appear that many on MM have predominantly smeared SFW (including all other state organizations) while little of nothing has been said or done about MDF and the role they have played in all of this as well. This furthers my concern about why SFW is the only entity being singled out? Makes me question who is behind the effort to derail what I believe to be one of the best sportsmen groups around.
Currently, the NAM has been predominantly based on a user pay system. Hunters, anglers and trappers (H/A/T) have led the conservation movement since it began; however, we are now seeing the overbearing costs of wildlife management system where only H/A/T pay for wildlife management and non-consumptive users pay nothing. This has never been an issue with sportsmen as we appreciate wildlife that is living as well; however, we are starting to see that our money is being intentionally diverted from our interests and desires towards non-game species and away from traditional H/A/T programs. We have been as the frog placed in a pan of water, then placed over an open flame. What was once acceptable has now become a threat. Our programs are routinely cut due to budget constraints; yet, states are still mandated by statute to manage for all wildlife. We continue to see our programs go unfunded, significantly reduced or eliminated. When non-consumptive users don't like what they see they litigate, further reducing and/or eliminating additional programs. Because of this, we are now talking about finding alternative funding sources for our state G&F Departments. As new sources of funding are added, I believe that ultimately, sportsmen will see some short-term gains but ultimately in the end we will realize that the warmth has now become excessive and we are doomed to the same fate as the frog which finds itself in boiling water.
While some have began using demeaning terms such as "wealth tags", etc. and causing class warfare as a means to an end. I see us falling into a trap. It has been said before; "United We Stand, Divided We Fall." One only needs to ask who benefits from our failure to Stand United? I have said before, we can all agree to disagree without being disagreeable. You and I have not hit it off very well and may never do so. I do see you providing help and answering a lot of questions. You bring some good insight to the discussion; however, sometimes you do make things personal. I too, have fallen into this trap from time to time. I have said things that I should not have in the heat of debate. Most on MM are very passionate about hunting; however, we do need to try and be more civil to one another, even when we might disagree. Perhaps we should look at this more as a brotherhood after all.
Sorry for the rant.
I am concerned about the NAM and any changes that may alter how it has worked in the past. I do have a degree in wildlife management from Utah State University, so I do understand the North American Model of Wildlife Management (or Conservation) as some refer to it.
Where you and I disagree is that I believe SFW (even in Utah) has not violated the NAM as everything has been handled thru the current public processes. From the discussions I have seen and read here on MM, it seems apparent to me that some people missed a few or failed to attend some key meetings pertaining to how the UDWR implements the Conservation and Convention licenses (or tags). To blame SFW (in Utah) for participating in a UDWR program that has been vetted and ultimately approved by the public makes no sense to me. Furthermore, to see all of the attention and negativity directed at SFW (including other state entities, that are in fact separate from Utah) while hardly even touching or criticizing MDF makes no sense either. From my perspective, it seems a bit hypocritical; especially given that we (myself included) now know that (UTAH) SFW has been telling the truth about their inability to force MDF to comply with others demands.
In my opinion, Hawkeye is attempting to do what should be done. If sportsmen do not like something in particular, they should engage in good debate with the UDWR (or their own state agency) to get the questions and resolutions they desire. That is the public trust part of the NAM and the key to resolving disputes among sportsmen. Vilifying one group to make one's point, in my opinion, hurts us all. We must realize that it is unlikely that we will always get what we want. Sometimes it takes multiple attempts until we can reach an outcome or solution we all can agree upon.
I have been gone from Utah since early 2000 and have not followed things, but what I have read on MM and elsewhere, it appears that some people desire a change. However, it appears that even according to the Director of the UDWR, both MDF & SFW have been compliant with his understanding of the law. No one has violated any laws; yet, it would appear that many on MM have predominantly smeared SFW (including all other state organizations) while little of nothing has been said or done about MDF and the role they have played in all of this as well. This furthers my concern about why SFW is the only entity being singled out? Makes me question who is behind the effort to derail what I believe to be one of the best sportsmen groups around.
Currently, the NAM has been predominantly based on a user pay system. Hunters, anglers and trappers (H/A/T) have led the conservation movement since it began; however, we are now seeing the overbearing costs of wildlife management system where only H/A/T pay for wildlife management and non-consumptive users pay nothing. This has never been an issue with sportsmen as we appreciate wildlife that is living as well; however, we are starting to see that our money is being intentionally diverted from our interests and desires towards non-game species and away from traditional H/A/T programs. We have been as the frog placed in a pan of water, then placed over an open flame. What was once acceptable has now become a threat. Our programs are routinely cut due to budget constraints; yet, states are still mandated by statute to manage for all wildlife. We continue to see our programs go unfunded, significantly reduced or eliminated. When non-consumptive users don't like what they see they litigate, further reducing and/or eliminating additional programs. Because of this, we are now talking about finding alternative funding sources for our state G&F Departments. As new sources of funding are added, I believe that ultimately, sportsmen will see some short-term gains but ultimately in the end we will realize that the warmth has now become excessive and we are doomed to the same fate as the frog which finds itself in boiling water.
While some have began using demeaning terms such as "wealth tags", etc. and causing class warfare as a means to an end. I see us falling into a trap. It has been said before; "United We Stand, Divided We Fall." One only needs to ask who benefits from our failure to Stand United? I have said before, we can all agree to disagree without being disagreeable. You and I have not hit it off very well and may never do so. I do see you providing help and answering a lot of questions. You bring some good insight to the discussion; however, sometimes you do make things personal. I too, have fallen into this trap from time to time. I have said things that I should not have in the heat of debate. Most on MM are very passionate about hunting; however, we do need to try and be more civil to one another, even when we might disagree. Perhaps we should look at this more as a brotherhood after all.
Sorry for the rant.
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,451
Yes---Long Rant....
But an interesting Rant none the less.
Food for Thought never hurts.
Robb
But an interesting Rant none the less.
Food for Thought never hurts.
Robb
LAST EDITED ON Jul-31-12 AT 06:27AM (MST)[p]I like long rants and am pretty good at them myself, LOL! I think I can agree on just about everything that you stated Bob, other than the fact that I, as most, don't feel these expensive auction tags that most of us can't afford really do meet the true intent of the NAM. At least the money raised is going where it should and for that I say bravo! The problem that I have with the raffle tags is the fact that a person has to go to Utah to validate and that effectively rules out 99+% of hunters. The other negative is obviously the fact that the $5 per ticket fee, which amounts to almost one million dollars, apparently isn't going where it was intended in the contract and the organizations taking in that money appear adamant that they don't want that to change. Thus the petition that will be discussed at the 8/16 meeting to try and change that the proper, Democratic way. You may not have noticed, but I, for one, have been trying to include MDF in any discussion about this so-called lack of transparency. When MDF (Miles Moretti) will not even respond to Randy in his request for information for the debate, other than to say he has not received any of the emails from Randy regarding the matter, IMHO it is also time to call BS on that organization! I didn't renew my dues a few years ago with MDF because of negative things I started hearing through the grapevine and I also dropped out of the RMEF about the time things got hot and Jay Dart left that organization. I have liked the positive changes made since Mr. Allen took the top spot and decided to rejoin, but MDF can kiss my arse! Have a good day guys!
ICMDEER
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,998
Back to the original question/issue. I'm confident the comments were aimed at Region D and particularly at the Upper Platte River drainage. Those areas in Region D will become limited quota next year. It's an issue that's being addresssed by a working group and encompasses a variety of issues. Habitat, seasons, predators, access and more are all on the table.
I have not heard that any other Wyoming areas are going limited quota next year. I'd say there's a communication breakdown or rumor somewhere.
We'll have to wait and see on the license costs. I'm sure it wll be a topic.
I have not heard that any other Wyoming areas are going limited quota next year. I'd say there's a communication breakdown or rumor somewhere.
We'll have to wait and see on the license costs. I'm sure it wll be a topic.
Similar threads
Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters
Urge 2 Hunt
We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.
