Proposed License Fee Increases

Thats interesting that its all retired guys that are claiming the G&F budget needs to be cut 15%.

Bet they were singing a different tune when they were on the rolls.

I also bet many of them have NO idea how the GF priorities and responsibilities and associated costs of conducting business have changed.

As to mule deer, lots of things being tried, all that cost a chitload of money. Results arent impressive...to say the least.

IMO, Mule deer are never going to return to the numbers found in the 60's and 70's. Too much has changed. I dont even see maintaining what we have currently.

Killing coyotes wont get it done...and thats just a simple truth.
 
I have read all the comments with great interest. I remember in Idaho many years it was determined that they had 2 1/2 pickup trucks for every man they had in the field. That was changed. I also remember a particular game warden who checked my fishing license at least 12 times in one year. He stopped after a friend of mine threatened to stuff him head first down a hole in the ice on Priest Lake.

I am sure that there are some cuts that can be made to streamline the Wyoming Game and Fish. Here in Clark, Wyoming they have a nice state fish hatchery. It raises almost exclusively various varieties of cutthroat trout for planting in the NW Wyoming area. I have been told that rearing cutthroat trout is expensive. They plant a bunch of these cutts in the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone and other surrounding waters. Despite all the planting in the Clarks Fork, your catch is almost exclusively naturally reproducing Rainbows and Browns. That is the same in the N. Fork of the Shoshone. You seldom catch the cutts (1 in 10 for me). The cutts you catch are locally referred to as "hot dogs" because in size they resemble a small hot dog with fins. They are skinny and you seldom catch one in excess of 10 inches. Maybe the Game and Fish should spend less money rearing fish and more time improving habitat for naturally reproducing fish. I think that is the approach Montana has taken. Perhaps, the same thing might work for pheasants.

I also think that Game and Fish might want to start selling two buck deer general tags with a tag good for whitetails and the other for mule deer. I think the Game and Fish wants to trim whitetail populations in this area. Raise some revenue and get rid of a few whitetails (timber maggots)in the process. I would buy an additional buck whitetail tag but I will never burn my one general tag on a whitetail buck. I just prefer hunting mule deer in the mountains. During the 5 day season in Clark on private ground, I could whack a decent whitetail buck in my backyard with minimal effort.

I also think that the biologists and game wardens are too quick to switch areas from general to limited quota, or to alter season dates, when there is no real reason to do so. In this area, I haven't noticed a significant change in actual bull elk harvest since most of the areas went limited quota. However, there are a lot fewer people purchasing tags.

I also wonder what kind of revenue could be raised if in sentencing a poacher you could assess an additional fine that goes directly to the Game and Fish crime lab to support its overhead. Maybe this is already going on.

I do think that some cuts are in order. I also think some additional revenue is in order. All Game and Fish Departments will need to streamline what they do. They may have to cut programs where the costs exceed the benefit received. This might include not outsourcing game harvest reporting.

just babbling...

mh
 
I also wonder what kind of revenue could be raised if in sentencing a poacher you could assess an additional fine that goes directly to the Game and Fish crime lab to support its overhead. Maybe this is already going on.

As an attorney you should know that this wont ever happen. The G&F would immediately be accused of giving out tickets simply to raise G&F revenues.

I like the spirit of your idea though.
 
That's not really true Buzz because a lot of times poachers are socked with restitution money that comes right back into the G&F coffers. The recent Carter case in TenSleep is a good example and many of the violations actually mandate that the G&F receive restitution for the poached animal, especially under the winter range and trophy sections of the law.
 
But do those cost even come close to the amount of money spent investigating and preparing the case for charges? I expect them to investigate and do everything possible to bring justice and fines etc. However, I have seen several cases where the total investment to bring charges far out weighed the fines...

As far as the fishing program, WTH is up with the tiger trout experiment around Baggs, etc. They are raising and stocking fish that will never reproduce only because they want to over populate selected rivers/lakes with the fish in order to kill out the suckers/trash fish. Then once this has occurred they will let the tiger trout die off, then go back and establish cut throats, which can compete in those marginal waters? Really glad my license money is going to that program. Also really sad that there are several bodies of water that should be full of fish, have virtually none.

Combine all this up and yest there are cost saving measures that can be had...

Also who ever thinks that predator reduction is not a benefit to helping deer numbers is an idiot. Many studies have shown how fawn recruitment can be greatly increased with the aggressive reduction in predators. However this process must be on going, not just one year and done.

The raffle tickets should be explored. I believe that this could be a great idea if they look at other state systems and avoid the negative implications... This system should limit the number of tickets anyone person can buy (no wealthy guy buying 500 tickets). It should set a reasonable cost per ticket, and have a limited number of tickets available. For example antelope could be sold at $20 a ticket with a 5 ticket max per person. The total tickets sold could be limited to 5,000... Thus a $100,000 for one tag, and the odds of drawing maybe 1 in a $1000... maybe a second auction could be had with 1/2 the tickets but double the cost.... Etc. this would level playing fields, give everyone a chance, and once applied across the various big game species could generate a ton of money with out putting any burden on one select group.

I do not believe the tags should be given to groups like the MDF, RMEF, SFW, etc. Instead, I believe that a percent of the raffle revenue should go to the DNR for operating cost and the remaining revenue be used in a grant type of setting where the various groups apply to a committee for funding of special projects that promote hunter recruitment, public access, and habitat improvement.

Just a thought. $20 ticket for Antelope, $30 ticket for Deer, $40 for elk, and $80 for sheep/goat/moose/ etc....

Also as a side benefit for a nonresident buying points maybe they could award a 3 day nonresident fishing permit every year I buy a point. Most would not use the permit, but at least it would allow me a weekend fishing and give me a reason to visit WY and spend money. Not to mention if I go, my wife or a buddy would join etc....

I just feel that nonresidents who have started building points are now trapped. Either get out now on a lesser tag than I had dreamed or continue to apply for points buy points for 14 years and then buy a tag that has increased a ton.... Atleast fishing for 3 days would seem like I am getting a little help from them. (I prefer to ice fish so the free fishing day doesn't do much for me).


HYMMM!!!! Just ahte to see people get priced out of hunting!
 
> I fully understand the feelings of
>many on MM when it
>comes to SFW in general
>and the erroneous claims made
>against WY SFW specifically.
>Fortunately for WY SFW, our
>creditability is not defined by
>MM or those which frequent
>this site.

Hate to tell ya Smoke, but yer credability was defined the day you guys tried to get license set asides pushed through in this state. And you'll never be forgiven for the sins of your father. In this case, its guilt by association with Don Peay and the rest of those d-bags out of Utah...
 
Also who ever thinks that predator reduction is not a benefit to helping deer numbers is an idiot. Many studies have shown how fawn recruitment can be greatly increased with the aggressive reduction in predators. However this process must be on going, not just one year and done.

Then you wont have any problem with providing a list of studies to support your claim.

Secondly, do you even have a remote clue how many acres of fawning habitat are in Wyoming?

Thirdly, do you even have a remote clue how many coyotes would need to be killed, in a very brief time-frame, to have any kind of significant impact on fawn recruitment?

Finally...how do you plan to fund a long-term project like killing coyotes when the G&F is already facing a 6-10 million a year shortfall?

Everyone talks about "predator pits"...they should be thinking about the "money pit" in regard to questionable/unreliable results of bolstering mule deer fawn recruitment via coyote control.

WOW!

Talk about a chit return on your investment.
 
As is known all mighty buzz just can never be wrong... But here are several studies showing that predator reduction result in higher numbers of prey animals. You stupid logic seems to imply that killing wolves will not have a positive effect on elk herds either. Simple logic would show that if there are fewer predators they will eat less prey....

But heck lets look for reports/studies that show prey animal numbers will increase as you decrease prey. Fawn recruitment is just one measure of success...

I will start finding all the sources I have used in the past. Most recently I saw a study that reduction in 10% of the lion population resulted in 6% increase in fawn recruitment and could be associated with a 13% drop in mortality rates...

But of course this would be so counter intuitive to common thought.


Also Buzz, I never said statewide... however there are some herds in worse shape than others. There are some areas where deer are concentrated more on winter range and easier targets, etc. All of those areas should be explored.... Very simple predator population go up prey populations go down... So if we manage predators to minimize this effect otehr aspects of management can be addressed... I will state that this is not the only solution but anyone with 1/2 a brain can agree it is step to helping the situation...
 
As an Oregon guy I can offer some perspective on the raffle tags as we have them. They do raise a tremendous amount of $ per animal. We have no limit on the number of tickets one can purchase, which I believe maximizes the revenue potential, but lots of folks have heartburn over the perceived fairness.
So I see it as a tradeoff. You can limit ticket sales per person to keep everyone happy, but you won't likely maximize revenue. Or no limit, max revenue, but lots of unhappy folks.

We also have auction hunts. Again, lots of revenue for a handfull of animals, but lots of folks here gripe about that too.

I should say there is also a lot of folks who approve of the auctions and raffles, but they are not the vocal ones.

I would guess WY residents will have the same mix of emotions if you go down that path.
 
I believe the AZ Kaibab deer herd exploded due to a huge push on predator control decades ago. I believe the herd increased to the point where there were so many they got out of balance with the habitat because of a lack of predators. I believe predator control is a part of rebuilding a herd, but how big a part probably differs greatly from area to area just as you mentioned.
 
You are correct about the Kaibab; however, without the use of poison our ability to be as effective in the removal of predators has been significantly reduced.

Too much of a good thing can sometimes be bad but when was the last time anyone saw a mule deer herd or population explode? I find it interesting that when predators were actively controlled we had abundant mule deer populations. Now all we hear is that the habitat is so bad it cannot sustain more mule deer. If mule deer are so critical to the overall funding of the G&F, why aren't they trying to push federal land managers to increase mule deer habitat projects as well as increasing their priority within those federal land management agencies? Seems like a logical question to me. Without a doubt production of mule deer herds across the west have declined dramatically. Why? Where is the research attempting to address and answer this question?

Can we expect habitat conditions to change on there own? What time frame would that take?
 
Bob,

You can push federal land managers all you want. Where is the funding to do habitat improvements on the scale you're talking? Dont look to the land management agencies for money...they dont have it. They're victims of budget woes as well, currently in the middle of early retirements, WRAPS, and on the edge of RIFing employees trying to "cost save" their way out of their own budget woes. You cant get what you dont pay for...savvy?

Further, you have an obstructionist Federal Legislature, full of anti-hunting Republicans, that couldnt even pass the Sportsmens Act of 2012. An act endorsed by about every heavy hitting hunting and conservation group in the country (except SFW big shock) which would have increased funding to 140 million and brought in revenues of 145 million (reducing the deficit 5 million). There was only a laundry list of habitat, shooting sports, etc. items in the Act that would have been funded.

Thats for starters.

Since there is barely enough money to keep the shingles on the roof of the various G&F and land management agencies, theres little to no money for studies, research, and habitat improvement and the like. I know, WYSFW is going to fund it all????????

You're great at asking the questions and making demands of the G&F, land management agencies etc. Thats the easy part that any bone-head can do.

The thing you forget is that YOU and YOUR group are looking to slash the chit out of the G&F budget, not increase funding. Remember? Should I remind you that you're not in favor of increasing revenues via outside sources or increasing fees? Yet, you have the nerve to place extra demands on the G&F and land management agencies?

Wheres the money coming from Bob? Your club going to pick up the slack and fund all the research, fund all the habitat projects?

Further, its taken 100+ years of fire suppression, poor grazing practices, etc. to get our habitat to the point its at today. Lets not forget the vast amounts of acreage lost to weed infestations, roading (in particular in gas and oil development), and human encroachment, global warming, I&D problems, increased elk numbers...the list goes on and fuggin' on.

This problem lacks funding, focus, research, and leadership...and thats just a fact.
 
BuzzH,

Funding is not an issue in Wyoming. The Wyoming Wildlife Natural Resource Trust has plenty of money for projects, they just need to have greater cooperation between and with the federal land management agencies.

Where are the shingles coming off?

You are helping to create a false crisis and you know it.

Do you know what the priorities are for the G&F? Because we are still waiting to see what they are. Perhaps you can put on your magic mind reading hat and let me know as they appear either unwilling or reluctant to release this information.

Yes, BuzzH, WY SFW is working to ensure that cuts are made where they are needed and warranted. We are also working to increase efficiencies as well. Can you honestly say that you think there is no room for cuts or increased efficiencies within the G&F budget? Really?

I do agree that habitat conditions did not get where they are today over night, nor do I believe they will be fixed today or tomorrow. Certainly, you are smart enough to see that factors effecting mule deer are certainly not limited to only one; that being habitat. What other factors can & should be addressed? Which factors can achieve short term gains and which will achieve long term gains?

We cannot keep passing cost onto the customer or consumer without periodically checking to ensure that our government agencies are running as efficiently as possible.
 
Bob,

False crisis?

I dont think so. Maybe you should have been there when I had to tell a bunch of employees that they didnt have a position anymore because of budget woes. Not seasonal employees, PFT staff.

Tell them how "false" the crisis is.

If funding isnt an issue...then why the budget shortfalls?

Your arrogance on this subject is really something.

WY SFW is working to ensure that cuts are made where they are needed and warranted

Glad to see you're the decision maker on what cuts are needed and warranted...arrogant a$$. Dont listen to the people paying the freight...just tell them like it is.
 
BuzzH,

You are really something!

I have not made one cut to the G&F budget all I have done is ask them to look at cuts which can be made. I am guilty of assuming they know best where to cut; however, I am still waiting on their priorities. May be they are wearing tinfoil hats to stop you from reading their thoughts, intentions, etc, etc.

I dont think so. Maybe you should have been there when I had to tell a bunch of employees that they didnt have a position anymore because of budget woes. Not seasonal employees, PFT staff.

Doesn't your own statement reinforce my point? You are doing so well that you had to let go your seasonal employees. Do you think that the G&F should not also make course corrections. WY SFW has made some cuts to our budget as well. That is what usually happens during uncertain economic times.

And you call me arrogant..........

Maybe you should read the 2012 Wyoming Mule Deer Hunter Attitudes Survey and then tell me who isn't listening!

This is sooo much fun and sooo productive, I really need to get back to grinding my axe. Might need it soon.........
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-12-12 AT 10:33AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-12-12 AT 10:32?AM (MST)

Do you know what the priorities are for the G&F? Because we are still waiting to see what they are. Perhaps you can put on your magic mind reading hat and let me know as they appear either unwilling or reluctant to release this information.

My oh MY, I wonder why they're reluctant to release any information to WYSFW?

Maybe because you're beating them over the head with the Legislature (that doesnt have any control) for the answers? You'll then beat them over the head with the legislature for your "cost savings".

Add hypocritical to the list of things that define WYSFW...the legislature is the "control monster" on the one hand...but then the "tool box" that WYSFW runs to when it needs something.

Unbelievable.
 
Reading comprehension isnt your strong suit...we didnt let any seasonal help go...we had to let PFT (permanent full time) staff go.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-12-12 AT 10:43PM (MST)[p]
>Bob: After briefly going over
>the list you just posted,
>I have several questions.
>Under the access section, why
>do you only mention increasing
>access to resident hunters when
>NR DIYers provide the bulk
>of the monies being collected
>by the G&F?

Oh, NR will be able to hunt the same property as the residents..Of course you will have to buy the tag and hire the outfitter..Meanwhile the resident hunter will be told when,where and for how long they can hunt,and how many can be on the hunt with you..Not to mention how many access yes properties will be swallowed up by this great new way of thinking.Sounds like a great access plan eh? If you're an outfitter it sure is.

All you gotta do is read between the lines and separate the BS.
 
My fear with these budget woes is that a Utah style tag system will be pushed through as a savior to wildlife. The Utah Conservation tags raised (according to Utah website) about 1.3 million. My fear is that somebody or some group in Wyoming will push CWMU's and a Conservation tag system to help address the budget shortfalls.

JMO, but I would much rather pay higher fees then allow the Wyoming system to move towards a Utah style system.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-13-12 AT 11:46AM (MST)[p]"JMO, but I would much rather pay higher fees then allow the Wyoming system to move towards a Utah style system."

Absolutely, and it seems the more Bob talks the deeper hole he's digging for himself and his group! The G&F may only get a small portion of their money from the General Fund, but why would anyone think that they don't answer to the same drummer that all the other Departments do? There is no way to escape the politics involved in all of the Game Departments and Commissions, as witnessed by the cave-in that the Montana Game Commission made this week by closing part of the wolf hunting zones because of collared wolves being shot near YNP.
 
I have already stated that WY SFW is not looking for anything like the Convention tags in Wyoming.

We have no details other than I have been talking about a voluntary program where landowners can partner with WY SFW. Still working on things but I believe Wyoming doesn't need to establish a CWMU or Ranching for Wildlife program, we can already accomplish what I am thinking about without any changes to the law.

BuzzH,

The autonomy of the G&F will be lost if it begins to derive too much of its funding from general fund dollars. That is what I was refering too earlier. I know that the G&F is already a State Department; however, they will not be able to act independent of the legislature. One more reason to avoid non-traditional funding sources.
 
SMOKESTICK stated:

"I have already stated that WY SFW is not looking for anything like the Convention tags in Wyoming.

We have no details other than I have been talking about a voluntary program where landowners can partner with WY SFW..........."




Wow, took 100+ posts before the makings of a deal like this finally was put to words.

I don't think anyone needs any details beyond what was provided to know that if successful in passing an idea that puts SFW in the mix with any group, the average hunter in Wyoming, resident or non-resident, is going to get the pipe laid to them.

Track records show that if SFW touches it, a fiasco is close at hand. At least if UT-SFW, NM-SFW, AK-SFW, MT-SFW are any indicators.

A fee increase would be the least of my worries once SFW publicly announces they want to start a program that involves their organization with anything related to tags and the public resource of wildlife.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Smokestick:"The autonomy of the G&F will be lost if it begins to derive too much of its funding from general fund dollars. That is what I was refering too earlier. I know that the G&F is already a State Department; however, they will not be able to act independent of the legislature. One more reason to avoid non-traditional funding sources. "


Could you please expand on those statements? What do you mean about their autonomy will be lost? What autonomy? Doesn't most everything they do have to be approved through the Legislature, including license fee increases and other fees, etc. Who appoints the Game Commission members and isn't that all basically political?
 
BigF I was watching yer show this evening where you were hunting elk south of Casper last Nov. Were those the only two bulls you saw and why didn't you wait to shoot the bigger bull until he stood up. I mean you battled snowstorms, hunted how many days and couldn't wait an hour or two longer for the bull to stand? Personally I would've cracked him while bedded. Looked like a fairly easy shot...
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-14-12 AT 00:22AM (MST)[p]BigFin,

You know nothing about WY SFW.

It took that many posts because that was not the topic or purpose of this thread.

It is not about the fee increase, it is about the cost of the fee increase. Too many are willing to the "average hunter" under the bus. WY SFW, the evil organization which caters to the wealthy appears to be the only organization that is willing to ask the hard questions and protect our hunting heritage. You might be able to fool some in your attempts to "act" as though you are concerned about the "average hunter" but you are unwilling to stand in their defense. Being an actor on your own television show really has allowed you to do some good things; however, your attitude smacks of arogance as you are profitting from the wildlife you exploit in your show. Of course you are willing to see license fees increase as it will lower your competition as fewer applicants will be applying for hunts. What are the long term consequences as we begin to price the "average hunters" you profess to care so much about? Your hatred for all things SFW is clouding your judgement.

What is this Country becoming when our government continues to spend money and put more burdens on the citizens which are responsible for paying for it. That model works when the citizens are making money but the uncertainty of these economic times makes this a very bad time to be increasing costs. Not everyone else has the ability to pass the increased costs of living on to someone else. We must ensure that our state agencies do not become so large as to be unsustainable via hunting/fishing licenses.

TOPGUN,

Currently, the WY G&F has an annual budget of about $75 million and they get another $5 million annually from the general funds of the state. The WY G&F Commission approves the budget; however, most of the general fund money is specific in how/where it can be spent. All the rest of of their funds are kept seperate and they set the priority of use. Some of those dollars are also very specific in how/where they can be spent. Out of all the Departments in Wyoming only two function in this capacity, the other is the Department of Transportation. I believe that should the G&F obtain a significant portion of their funding from the legislature they wiil more than likely see that end. All money would be held and controlled by the legislators. This is not something WY SFW would like to see but it is a very real reality and a likely outcome should the lion share of the money come from general funds.

It is the Governor which names the G&F Commissioners and the Senate which confirms them. Wyoming has 7 districts, with a Commissioner being chosen from each district. The G&F website identifies which Commissioner represents which district if you are interested in looking. By and large, the legislature has little to do with the G&F. You are correct in that they do control when license fees can be increased. That is about the only thing they have and it is highly unlikely they we be willing to give that up. Even less likely should a considerable amount of general fund dollars become available for them.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-14-12 AT 07:24AM (MST)[p]"It is the Governor which names the G&F Commissioners and the
Senate which confirms them. Wyoming has 7 districts, with a Commissioner being chosen from each district. The G&F
website identifies which Commissioner represents which district if you are interested in looking. By and large, the legislature has little to do with the G&F."

Smokestick---I already knew that was the case and I was just trying to make a point. How can you say the G&F is autonomous when the Governor appoints the Commissioners (with approval of the Legislature)and the Commission oversees the Department? Are you so naive that you think the Department Director and all his employees can do whatever they want without approval of the Commission or am I way off base? I would think that even though they only get the funds you stated from the GF that they are a lot more beholdiong to follow what the Governor and his Commissioners want than you are letting on or think. Our Michigan system is very similar to yours with a bigger % of money coming from the GF and that has been decreasing greatly over the years, but I guarantee you that they operate like I just mentioned and if they don't stay within the guidelines the Commission sets the Director is quickly out on his/her rearend in the street!
 
TOPGUN,

You asked: " Are you so naive that you think the Department Director and all his employees can do whatever they want without approval of the Commission or am I way off base?"

Hardly naive at all. I have been working with the legislators since 2003 and there are many which would like to see the G&F ran just like other state agencies are ran. You are the one that is not understanding this point.

I am not stating that our Director is not following the direction of Wyoming's G&F Commission nor our Governor. I am saying that with increased general funding you will certainly see greater legislative scrutiny. One need only look at how the $5 million general funds are handled and apply that on a much larger scale.
 
Smokestick,

You dont think the Legislature has any control?

Then why did you run to them to get your information and ask concerned citizens to contact the Legislature?

Remember whats in your position statement?

WY SFW urges all of our members to contact their state legislators and let them know directly how you feel about proposed license fee increases

Why are you having your members contact the legislature that has no control?

Remember when you were bragging about your meeting with Jaggi? Why work through the legislature, that you are telling us has no control? The Wyoming Game and Fish (thats not a State agency according to you), has all the authority...remember?

I recall pretty clearly what you said, since YOU posted it:Representative Jaggi (R-Lyman) has asked that either the G&F or their Commission provide the legislators with a list of their priorities. Hopefully, that will enable additional cuts to be made by eliminating lesser prioritized projects/programs, etc.

You and your club are really looking out for the average guy for sure. All you've done is work through the legislature (that according to you has no authority or power to do anything) to slash programs and projects that will reduce opporunity for sportsmen in Wyoming. Apparently you feel slighted because the WYG&F will not "work" with SFW? I cant blame them, since you run to the Legislature every time you dont get your way...even though the legislature has no authority or no pull with the WYG&F (which isnt a State Agency anyway, according to you).

Real great solution, way to go WYSFW!

You're continuing the work of the Parent Club by dividing hunters, controlling the WYG&F via the Legislature and back-room politics, and helping to reduce opportunity for average sportsmen. But hey, at least the outfitters, landowners and wealthy hunters will have it good.

Congratulations?
 
Bob,

You're a joke!

Really???I am not stating that our Director is not following the direction of Wyoming's G&F Commission nor our Governor. I am saying that with increased general funding you will certainly see greater legislative scrutiny.

Yeah, and YOU'RE a big part of that problem. You've asked the Legislature many, many, many times to intervene on behalf of your club. You're asking...hell, BEGGING them to intervene and impose their scrutiny on the WYG&F.

You've stated it here on this board many times...and on THIS thread many times.

You trumpet on about how you dont want the legislature to scrutinize the WYG&F and their decisions then fuggin' ask the Legislature to do just that!

Try thinking before you type and remember what you've said. You couldnt negotiate your way out of a wet paper sack...and its no wonder you cant deal with the WYG&F. Your double-talk probably annoys them too.
 
Their tag, their hunt, their choice...no reason for anyone to have to justify why they ethically and legally took an animal.

Period.
 
BuzzH,

You are the one advocating and supporting actions that will further reduce the number of hunters/anglers. Furthermore, you are also in support of establishing non-traditional funding sources.

You just make things up as you go along or use you magic mind-reading abilities to determine my intent. Cherry pick all you want, it doesn't change anything. You are still calling me names and making it personal. All I have done is attempt to educate and inform.

To each their own. You have your way of seeing it as do I.

If you cannot win the debate, change the focus.

You really are amazing!
 
I'm a fan of the show and a supporter of his sponsors. I think I can ask him question if I want. Having said that why don't you mind yer own f'n business. Period...
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-14-12 AT 01:04PM (MST)[p]Take your own advice...

why don't you mind yer own f'n business. Period...

If you're such a fan of the show...he said why he shot the one he did right after he shot it. Gave the best shot, was broadside and he wasnt going to take the chance waiting on the other one.
 
Why isn't it clear to everyone out there that SFW in any of their forms are still beholden to the mother ship in Utah and will do their bidding.

Thank goodness the smoke and mirrors have been sorted through and most DIY public land hunters know SFW's protocol and are ready. Finally after 100 posts and being asked in layman terms over and over and over, SmokeScreen finally admits that "Landowners will be able to Partner with SFW-WY"......... Gotta love that Utah model.

Since The Don was chicken$#!t and backed out of the debate with BigFin, I would love to have our own version here in Wyo. BuzzH vs. SmokeScreen. The only condition is that when SmokeScreen is handed his AssHat, that he get on his high horse and go back to the MotherShip in UTAH. Randolph, UT if I'm not mistaken???
The "Habitat tour" in Wyo will be pretty short. We won't even need to rent the "short-bus" for all the SFW faithful to attend. I'll just throw a bale of hay in the back of the truck when I come to the debate for all to see. If I remember right, ALL the hay SFW donated was going to feed the elk for less than a week, but I may be wrong.

SmokeScreen you can tell it over and over that SFW-WY is different than your legions in Utah but until you act differently and prove it, why should we be anything but scared of your intentions?

To quote a pretty good George Strait movie, "you know what that little white top on a piece of chicken ##### is called? ........... It's called Chicken #####!"

-Cade
www.HuntForeverWest.com

P.S.: my comments were submitted long ago and I encouraged everyone else to do the same. It was snowing on the mountain the night of the open house so I didn't make the 2 hour drive, but my local GF employees know my concerns and a few suggestions to help fix the budget..........
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-14-12 AT 04:20PM (MST)[p]The more I read posts put up by Bob on all of this, the more I just shake my head. BuzzH might have stretched it a little when he said Bob doesn't think the G&F is a Wyoming Department, but I have to agree with BuzzH on almost everything else. The more Bob posts the more he contradicts himself, whether he says he doesn't or not and all you have to do is go back through all his posts over the last year or two to see it. Sorry Bob, but I have to agree with the previous post and I've said it before myself that as long as SFW is in the name of your group you are guilty by association because of all the crappola that SFW has pulled and/or tried to pull in all the other states it operates in.
 
Triple BB wrote - BigF I was watching yer show this evening where you were hunting elk south of Casper last Nov. Were those the only two bulls you saw and why didn't you wait to shoot the bigger bull until he stood up. I mean you battled snowstorms, hunted how many days and couldn't wait an hour or two longer for the bull to stand? Personally I would've cracked him while bedded. Looked like a fairly easy shot...


Triple - This is purely a personal reason for doing so, and I surely don't expect that everyone would do the same thing. Others emailed with the same question. I will do my best to explain why.

I had hunted my butt off, as you saw. I had thought about waiting. These were the only two bulls I saw in seven days of hunting that I would have had a good ethical shot on.

As we all know, sometimes they stay bedded until dark and no shot is offered. Sometimes they stand up and give you a good shot. Sometimes they stand up and offer a marginal shot.

Both bulls were enough to make me happy, having invested as many days as I had, in such difficult conditions. I shoot a ton, and I am pretty sure I could have drilled that bigger bull in his bed.

Yet, if I had done that, and something went afoul, I worried of the message it would have sent to viewers; viewers who are already inundated with emphasis on trophies. So, I went with the shot that was far closer to a sure thing and was very pleased with the outcome. The risk of making a mistake in pursuit of a bigger bull, did not seem worth it, given the things we try to emphasize in our show.

Do I wish the bigger bull would have been the one standing and had given me the better shot? Oh yeah, I sure do. But, on our show, opportunities are hard to come by, so I accept how it happened and was thankful for the bull that stood broadside.

I wanted to show people that the trophy, the experience, the personal reasons for hunting, are defined by the person with the tag, not by TV guys, not by their friends, not by anyone else. It is up to the tag holder to decide what makes them happy. And by shooting the smaller bull that offered the better shot, I was doing what I felt was the right thing to do, based on my personal feelings.

Again, not to be judgmental of anyone who would have waited, or who would have shot the bigger one that was bedded. Good for them, if they did it the other way.

I just want people to feel comfortable in doing what feels best to them under the conditions of the moment,regardless of animal size. To not worry what others will think or judge them by.

To me, part of the responsibility I feel in doing the TV show is to provide some counter to the idea so many other shows portray of inches and scores at all costs. If delivering that message, a message I feel is very important, means at times I have to shoot the smaller of two animals, that is a price I am willing to pay. Hopefully, it shows that we put our money where our mouth is.

I want our show to allow people to make their own choices based on what they are comfortable with, not add to the already ridiculous pressures TV shows place on beginning hunters that anything short of a 350 bull or 180 buck is a waste.

It is hard to explain. I hope this reply makes sense.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Smokestick wrote -

BigFin,

You know nothing about WY SFW.

It took that many posts because that was not the topic or purpose of this thread.

It is not about the fee increase, it is about the cost of the fee increase. Too many are willing to the "average hunter" under the bus. WY SFW, the evil organization which caters to the wealthy appears to be the only organization that is willing to ask the hard questions and protect our hunting heritage.

You might be able to fool some in your attempts to "act" as though you are concerned about the "average hunter" but you are unwilling to stand in their defense. Being an actor on your own television show really has allowed you to do some good things; however, your attitude smacks of arogance as you are profitting from the wildlife you exploit in your show.

Of course you are willing to see license fees increase as it will lower your competition as fewer applicants will be applying for hunts.

What are the long term consequences as we begin to price the "average hunters" you profess to care so much about? Your hatred for all things SFW is clouding your judgement.


Well, Smokestick, I happen to know enough about UT-SFW, WY-SFW, MT-SFW, AK-SFW, AZ-SFW, NM-SFW, to know that when SFW wants to be in charge of a program that deals with tags, it is not good for the average hunter. You seriously expect people are going to stand by silently when you state as you did in that post, that your goal was to find a way for landowners to have a tag program involving WY-SFW?

As to your comment about throwing the average guy under the bus, your organization has written the book on that one. Makes me laugh to read where you imply otherwise. Hell, the average guy has so many SFW bus tire tracks on his back, it will take generations for them to go away.

What you know of me, my show, my motivations is pretty limited, in fact would be ZERO. State what you think. I can promise you, it would reflect that your head is somewhere that the air is not fresh, as it relates to me and my motivations.

Your comment shows once again just how ignorant the SFW crowd is on most anything where people might actually be concerned about the average guy having a voice and might be willing to invest their own time and money to give a little bit back to the cause. Lots of the average guys give back, Smokestick, whether with their time, money, labor, or whatever. Maybe the paid staff of SFW struggles to understand the volunteerism of those who want to make things a little better for all hunters.

I am pretty sure that the hundreds and hundreds of emails I answer each year answering people who ask where we hunted, how they could do the same thing, maybe even some tips of where to go, provides a lot of competition for tags in areas I hunt. I hope in doing so, it helps a lot of average guys who want to go hunting and need a little information to help them get started. Glad to help where I can, even if it means I will be competing with them for tags.

Most the SFW efforts in every state where I have followed them or had a spat with them would be counter to that notion. Just a proven fact, repeated time and again by the actions of SFW leaders.

Spare me the BS about my hatred for SFW. There are a lot of good people who have worked to try make things better under the SFW banner. Unfortunately, these good people and their efforts have been screwed over by some poor leadership in every state SFW organization.

If my pointing out that fact, and using my platform to show some of the BS that SFW tries to pull off is viewed as hatred by the SFW leadership, then so be it. Truth is a hell of a thing to try run away from. If you don't like that folks have succeeded in show people just what SFW has been up to, then maybe you should do something to start changing that tide.

I really could care less what Wyoming does with fees. Wildlife is a state issue, so the decision is up to them. I will deal with whatever they do. If they keep fees where they are, fine. If they raise fees, they have a track record that they will put the money to good use, hopefully allowing them to continue a very good job of managing wildlife. That is fine, also.

If Wyoming allows SFW to enter into some special program as you mentioned in the post I replied to, then I do care, as history shows it will probably screw over the average guy, both resident or non-resident.

Feel free to say or think what you want about me and our show/website. I will gladly let people decide for themselves on that one. I will let our efforts speak for us. Glad to let the SFW efforts speak for your organization's motives.

Why is it that when someone with a platform is willing to speak up and tries to give a voice to the average guy, the SFW leaders get so worked up? We all know why, and you help prove it again here.

So long as SFW leaders are on the landscape doing all they can to use money obtained from public resources to screw over the average guy, folks will be there to fight it. Many will be there for the fight. I will be just one of the many who are willing to speak up. The fact that I have built an effective platform, makes it all that more important that I speak up when I think it can be helpful to the average guy.

Now that I look at your reply, you have followed in lockstep with the SFW mantra. When questioned about your comment of working to establish a landowner program that includes WY-SFW, you try to attack the guy who points out the potential for problems, rather than address the issue at hand. Right from the SFW playbook.

Carry on .......

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-15-12 AT 03:54PM (MST)[p]Excellent post on your elk hunt BigFin and I wish a lot larger percentage of those in the field had our philosophy that the overall experience is a lot more than inches of bone collected!!! Your reply in response to the posts by Smokestick is also spot on---good job and thanks for all your work for the average guy, as it is much appreciated!!!
 
For all of you which cannot read or fail to comprehend what I have written I will say it again. This is from post #122.

SMOKESTICK said: I have already stated that WY SFW is not looking for anything like the Convention tags in Wyoming.

We have no details other than I have been talking about a voluntary program where landowners can partner with WY SFW. Still working on things but I believe Wyoming doesn't need to establish a CWMU or Ranching for Wildlife program, we can already accomplish what I am thinking about without any changes to the law.

A volunteer program is just that, a volunteer program. I am not working with the state to do anything as it is not warranted or necessary. It will be between WY SFW & which ever landowner desires to partner with us. You guys are so spiteful about anything that involves SFW that you cannot even understand what is plainly stated.

BigFin,

Your mind reading skills are about as good as BuzzH. You know nothing about WY SFW and continue to imply that you do. It makes me wonder just how much you know about the other SFW organizations you claim to know so much about as so far your interpretation of WY SFW has been flat out wrong.

Where has WY SFW thrown anyone under the bus? For that matter, specifically, where has any SFW thrown the average hunter under the bus?

I don't claim to know anything about you or your show. I just find in interesting that you continue to attack anything SFW. I guess your television program is not for profit or that you are doing it simply to help other hunters.

From BigFin: If Wyoming allows SFW to enter into some special program as you mentioned in the post I replied to, then I do care, as history shows it will probably screw over the average guy, both resident or non-resident.

You are either claiming that none of WY SFW members are average guys or that WY SFW should not be able to work with landowners to develop a program that both parties like? Which is it? Does WY SFW and its members not have the right to pursue our interests in our own state?

Once again from BigFin: Why is it that when someone with a platform is willing to speak up and tries to give a voice to the average guy, the SFW leaders get so worked up? We all know why, and you help prove it again here.

Maybe it just might be that you are using your platform to push your agenda against SFW. So you have entered a discussion under the topic of "Proposed License Fee Increases" and imply that SFW is up to its old antics, having no facts, only a poor understanding of what I posted.

You did finally address the purpose of this thread when you stated: I really could care less what Wyoming does with fees. Wildlife is a state issue, so the decision is up to them. I will deal with whatever they do. If they keep fees where they are, fine. If they raise fees, they have a track record that they will put the money to good use, hopefully allowing them to continue a very good job of managing wildlife. That is fine, also.

Okay, so you are in support of what ever the WY G&F decides to do. What about the average guys which are stating that they will no longer hunt as fees are getting too high? I guess that means you could also care less about them as well. As I have stated before, of course it means nothing to you as you are profitting from your television program and are most likely writing off all of your expenses any way. Then you have the presumptuousness to make this staement: "So long as SFW leaders are on the landscape doing all they can to use money obtained from public resources to screw over the average guy, folks will be there to fight it. Many will be there for the fight. I will be just one of the many who are willing to speak up. The fact that I have built an effective platform, makes it all that more important that I speak up when I think it can be helpful to the average guy.

I hope that the average guys understand who is fighting in their behalf and who is really standing up for them.

WY SFW will continue to ask hard questions of our G&F Department as apparently no one else has the guts to ask the hard questions. It is our intent to first get whatever cost saving measures or cuts are warranted. We will then look at ways to increase efficiencies within the G&F Department. In addition to this, WY SFW is looking for ways to increase traditional funding mechanisms for our G&F Department.

If you agree with our approach, please engage in the process. If you do not, then just roll over and take it as inevitable.

That is all I have to say about this topic.
 
Thanks for confirming the points I made, Smokestick. Makes me smile to read how the SFW training manual has made most every SFW leader operate in the same predictable manner.

Oh, BTW, Utah's CWMU program and Colorado's RFW programs are also "voluntary." And, in normal fashion, SFW is trying to put itself in the middle of another state tag program. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

If you want to start another thread about where SFW drove their bus over the backs of average hunters, I would love to provide you pages of examples.

Let's see, we have the attempts to stop wolf delisting in MT/ID. We have the attempt to steal 350 of the best tags AZ has to offer and raffle them off with all the money being kept by SFW. Oh, are we supposed to forget when SFW got their pal placed as the Director of AK G&F, only to have him give SFW the majority of the AK Governors tags prior to resigning under indictments for illegal hunting. In MT, they tried to gut the budgets of MT FWP. In ID, they tried to increase the auction tag system. In NM, they lobbied to get a bill passed that resulted in NRs paying a $65 license fee just to apply and get even lower percentages of tags.

Those are just in the last two years. With that track record, SFW's supposed altruism for average hunters in this Wyoming issue is certain to garner some suspicion.

You complain that the some in the hunting world are "picking on" SFW. Imagine that, given the track record of SFW and what happens when SFW supposedly represents the average hunter.

Easy cure - change your ways, change your leadership, and decide to do what is best for the average hunter, rather than what is best for SFW and their leaders/donors. Until then, I suspect SFW will not have much trust and faith among the hunting community.

To finish, I found it peculiar that this thread was about a fee increase, yet finally, after 122 posts, you stated one of the true goals of WY-SFW; to get themselves in the mix of a tag program in another state, the same as they have done/attempted in all other states with SFW franchises. It was at that time that I decided to post, wanting to make sure that readers did not miss what you had stated as a goal of SFW.

Feel free to continue taking shots at the messenger. Facts are what they are.

Good luck to Wyoming hunters, regardless of what decision is made on a fee increase.


"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
Smokestick said,

A volunteer program is just that, a volunteer program. I am not working with the state to do anything as it is not warranted or necessary. It will be between WY SFW & which ever landowner desires to partner with us. You guys are so spiteful about anything that involves SFW that you cannot even understand what is plainly stated.

Wow, this is the EXACT reason why all average sportsmen should be very critical of all SFW organizations. They have a track record of only worrying about themselves and their agenda. There is no concernd about programs that benefit ALL sportsmen...only underhanded deals between their club and landowners. But, Bob will tell you he's just "looking out for the average guy." What a joke!


It makes me wonder just how much you know about the other SFW organizations you claim to know so much about as so far your interpretation of WY SFW has been flat out wrong. Where has WY SFW thrown anyone under the bus? For that matter, specifically, where has any SFW thrown the average hunter under the bus

I know this Bob. I know that the Alaska SFW Leader Dude, Cory Rossi, who had NO wildlife background was appointed to the Alaska G&F as director via backhanded politics. He was also found guilty of a bunch of poaching violations. Typical of the quality produced by SFW.

I also know that in the case of the NMSFW group, that R. Espenoza is a real advocate of transferable landowner tags and putting the screws to NR DIY hunters (who helped strip about 50% of the available NR DIY pool of tags from).

I also know that MTSFW has been on the wrong side of just about every piece of legislation that would harm average hunters in that state.

I know UTSFW, and your founder, Don Peay are 100% against stream access in Utah, Montana, etc. I know theres some massive questions regarding funds, where those funds go/have gone, from the SFW expo in Utah. UTSFW has robbed well over 500 NR tags from limited quota areas and is either selling, raffling, or auctioning them to the highest bidder. Is that not throwing the average guy under the bus?

How about AZSFW and their attempted tag grab in Arizona, you know the nice little back-stabbing they attempted by trying to take several hundred tags to sell to the highest bidders/raffle, etc? How is that helping the average guy?

How was asking sportsmen across the country to kill the Simpson/Tester rider NOT throwing the average hunters of both ID and MT under the bus? What RIGHT did your club have to tell or ask other hunters to derail a rider that granted them state authority to manage their wildlife?

As to WYSFW, its already been stated. You have endorsed and supported transferable landowner tags in WY, you've endorsed and supported outfitter sponsored tags, you're looking for ways to make deals between YOUR CLUB and landowners (without a care in the world about any other NR or R hunters), and the list goes on and on.

Do I need to list more...or are we done proving that SFW, and all its sister State orgs. are the enemy of the average sportsmen?

The proof is the puddin' Bob...and theres a double batch.

You are either claiming that none of WY SFW members are average guys or that WY SFW should not be able to work with landowners to develop a program that both parties like? Which is it? Does WY SFW and its members not have the right to pursue our interests in our own state?

I'm claiming that its a chickenschit orgazination that has to work back-room deals that only benefit its membership while systematically not doing a single thing for the ALL hunters. You have the right to pursue your interests...and the average hunters in Wyoming have the right to call you and your club out over your wants. Keep up the good work Bob, you're doing great things to isolate and alienate your club even more than they already are. You're making this wayyy too easy Bob, shine the light on you and your club and you do all the work exposing your true agenda.

Maybe it just might be that you are using your platform to push your agenda against SFW. So you have entered a discussion under the topic of "Proposed License Fee Increases" and imply that SFW is up to its old antics, having no facts, only a poor understanding of what I posted.

You are. Like I already stated, you havent brought a single idea to the table regarding anything that will increase needed revenues to the WYG&F budget. Only offered ways to cut WYG&F programs and opportunities for sportsmen that YOU and YOUR club dont think are necessary.

Okay, so you are in support of what ever the WY G&F decides to do.

Yes, because the WYG&F has a proven and successful track record of managing wildlife for ALL sportsmen and expanding opportunities for ALL sportsmen. which is contrast to SFW's track record of only being concerned with members of SFW and their rich pals, outfitter buddies, corrupt political friends, and landowners.

What about the average guys which are stating that they will no longer hunt as fees are getting too high?

What about them Bob? You are afraid to look for outside non-traditional funding to keep fees low. Oh, thats right, you're going to get around to those solutions once you gut the WYG&F and "unnecessary programs" that will end up taking away opportunity. Nice.

I guess that means you could also care less about them as well.

No guessing about it, you could care less about them. You're going to go back to the same well and ask them for license fee increases. Remember Bob, you already stated you'd be for the increases and you also stated your "cost savings" measures wouldnt cover the 6-10 million shortfall.

As I have stated before, of course it means nothing to you as you are profitting from your television program and are most likely writing off all of your expenses any way.

Do you really want to go down the road of seeing who is writing off what Bob? How about opening WYSFW's books and let us all have a look-see.

I hope that the average guys understand who is fighting in their behalf and who is really standing up for them.

Oh, I have a lot of faith in the average guys. Most of them are wayyy past smart enough to figure out who has their best interests at heart and who is making back-room deals for the interest of their club.

WY SFW will continue to ask hard questions of our G&F Department as apparently no one else has the guts to ask the hard questions.

Apparently you dont have the guts either Bob. You have the Legislature do your dirty work because the WYG&F is reluctant to deal with you and your club. Looks like business as usual for WYSFW, whine about the legislature but wield it like a sword to promote your agenda. Nice.

In addition to this, WY SFW is looking for ways to increase traditional funding mechanisms for our G&F Department.

Yep, traditional funding means only one thing, asking sportsmen for a fee increase. Which you're against...before you're for it.

If you agree with our approach, please engage in the process. If you do not, then just roll over and take it as inevitable.

Wow, arrogance again at a level I'd only expect from SFW. If you dont like WYSFW's approach, then pound sand. Only WYSFW's and their approach will work, any other solution is to be disregarded and viewed as "rolling over and take it".

You wonder why average guys dont agree with you, your club, and your agenda?

Wow...just WOW!
 
I am a Wyoming Resident that grew up in Utah. Haven't hunted Utah since a year before I moved, because of the price, if I wanted to go back and hunt Utah as a nonresident I would have to buy a $65 hunting license just to apply. What a joke.(my money is lost if I don't draw.)
Non-residents can buy a Wyoming Preference point each season for $40. I don't know if that is changing with the increases or not. Utah General Tags are $263. Hunting license+tag=$328. The Limited entry tags cost $463.Now 463+65 is $528.
Now in my opion wyomings general areas are better than most(notice I said most) of Utahs limited entry areas. Obviously some limited entery units in utah are better than the wyoming general regional tags but they should be. Now Utah premium Limited entry lol what a joke $563 just for the tag. Now that being sad boo-hoo. I would love to hunt Utah but I am not willing to donate $65 a year just to apply. If you don't like the cost, hunt the state you live in.

"Relax and squeeze the trigger, They can't
get away;)", quoted from the best hunter I
know
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-16-12 AT 06:31PM (MST)[p]It's hard to believe that Smokestick keeps posting and there is nothing, absolutely nothing concrete in any of them! A while back there were posts that WYSFW only wanted to "stablize" the outfitter industry, but when asked specifics there were no specifics given. Now he has come out and is talking about a "partnership" between the group and landowners. I'm not even going to ask for any specifics on that, but they already get tags for their own use and I can't see any change in that system being a positive for the average guy unless some, or all, of those tags are put back into the draws. Specifics, Bob, is what we would like to hear and not just a bunch of general statements leaving us all guessing. With the overall track record of SFW, what are we to think other than look out for the bus again when all we can do is read between the lines in your posts!
 
and this is their mission statement:

"The mission of SFW is to promote the protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat, assist in providing quality wildlife management programs, educating the public about the role hunters play in wildlife conservation, and perpetuating the tradition of hunting and fishing."

what a bunch of lying, deceitful ba$tards. i pray the idaho chapter falls on its a$$!!

we need to start fsfw. i think you can all figure out what the new "f" stands for.
 

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

30-incher?
8B48C6AD-D16D-4078-B3BF-8E1335121331.jpeg
IMG_4204.JPG
Hook Cheater.jpg
E1F3DB0E-AE2D-437A-BA11-83023EF75906.jpeg
0423210209.jpg
Table Mtn. bulls5.jpg
7C5293FF-940E-47B6-AA4F-9F9D477F296C.jpeg
1680006839432.jpeg
20210919_164841.jpg
IMG_2088.jpeg
MTC_0115.JPG

Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Badger Creek Outfitters

Offering elk, deer and pronghorn hunts on several privately owned ranches.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, and moose in Wyoming.


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses
Back
Top Bottom