60/40 Special nr distribution
- Thread starter WapitiBob
- Start date
4
440sixpack
Guest
As we just witnessed with the failure of the bill changing the NR quota, the NR hunters value to the state is measured in dollars. so be it, I would rather pay more for more than pay less for less.
What else in life goes to the lowest bidder? somehow hunters still suffer from the delusion they're getting free meat. look at this for what it is and stop trying to find someone to blame.
Stay thirsty my friends
What else in life goes to the lowest bidder? somehow hunters still suffer from the delusion they're getting free meat. look at this for what it is and stop trying to find someone to blame.
Stay thirsty my friends
4
440sixpack
Guest
True story. forget the silly notion you're entitled to any amount of tags at any set price.
Stay thirsty my friends
Stay thirsty my friends
Zeke
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,605
I HOPE nonresident hunters are valued for their money but who knows what the future will hold?
We must play within the rules set by other people. This isn't always comfortable but what else is new? To that end, we're all in the same boat whether res or NR.
Good luck to all. It's that APPLICATION time of year again.
Zeke
We must play within the rules set by other people. This isn't always comfortable but what else is new? To that end, we're all in the same boat whether res or NR.
Good luck to all. It's that APPLICATION time of year again.
Zeke
BuzzH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 6,117
LAST EDITED ON Feb-17-15 AT 11:48AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-17-15 AT 11:47?AM (MST)
The Legislative body of Wyoming is really looking out for you NR's...so much so that today in testimony you referred to as "only Non Residents".
One person testified in committee in favor, 2 Sportsmen's group opposed, one Resident Hunter opposed.
Bill passed 3-2 with Johnson and Barnard being opposed Cooper, Anderson, and Craft in support.
N.A.M. and the hunter of average means took another hit today. At least it impacts "only" you NR's.
The Legislative body of Wyoming is really looking out for you NR's...so much so that today in testimony you referred to as "only Non Residents".
One person testified in committee in favor, 2 Sportsmen's group opposed, one Resident Hunter opposed.
Bill passed 3-2 with Johnson and Barnard being opposed Cooper, Anderson, and Craft in support.
N.A.M. and the hunter of average means took another hit today. At least it impacts "only" you NR's.
elkantlers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,734
So when does this go into effect?
Zeke
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,605
>N.A.M. and the hunter of average
>means took another hit today.
>At least it impacts "only"
>you NR's.
That's painfully true, Buzz!
I can pay more but it's becoming a real financial concern so I cannot even imagine how a young father/family could swing it.
God help us all,
Zeke
>means took another hit today.
>At least it impacts "only"
>you NR's.
That's painfully true, Buzz!
I can pay more but it's becoming a real financial concern so I cannot even imagine how a young father/family could swing it.
God help us all,
Zeke
>So when does this go into
>effect?
It would take effect for the 2016 draws. However, that was just an initial Committee vote. It still has to pass muster though the entire Legislature and then be signed by the Governor. IMHO if it just passed 3-2 in Committee, then NRs need to keep contacting the Legislators with the chance that it won't make it through the entire Legislative process as written. I would presume that's why two voted Nay, as I understand plenty of NRs like myself have been hitting them pretty good with emails and letters. I hope people keep it up and if we don't at least contact them with our concerns, we can't really gripe if it goes through.
>effect?
It would take effect for the 2016 draws. However, that was just an initial Committee vote. It still has to pass muster though the entire Legislature and then be signed by the Governor. IMHO if it just passed 3-2 in Committee, then NRs need to keep contacting the Legislators with the chance that it won't make it through the entire Legislative process as written. I would presume that's why two voted Nay, as I understand plenty of NRs like myself have been hitting them pretty good with emails and letters. I hope people keep it up and if we don't at least contact them with our concerns, we can't really gripe if it goes through.
I guess I'm the only DIY/OYO hunter that believes this could be a good thing for nonres? Those that are in favor of this keep rolling in the letters and emails as well!
May be a good thing for those that can afford the special. What happens after is what concerns. The 10% rule will fly through with the extra funding. WYOGA may cut their own throat in the end?
May be a good thing for those that can afford the special. What happens after is what concerns. The 10% rule will fly through with the extra funding. WYOGA may cut their own throat in the end?
fullthrottle
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,361
Bet your ass it's going to pass! When hasn't our wildlife been about the all mighty $$?
I've spent a great deal of time the past month thinking about the ramifications on both sides of this bill and still come to the same conclusion. Both short and long term this is a great bill for Wyo nonres hunters! If you are a Wyo nonres hunter that enjoys hunting the Cowboy state on a regular basis the 60/40 bill will benefit you. When I first heard about it I had similar thoughts about fewer tags available in the regular pool and having to budget to save for more expensive special tags. Once I thought about it in more detail the more sense it made!
The first question I'll ask those nonres that are against this bill is what will likely happen if this doesn't pass? I don't think many nonres have considered the alternatives? This more than anything else is the reason I support this bill!
Buzz I've said it before and I'll say it again....I could care less if the WYOGA supports this bill or not! I applaud the WYOGA for introducing this bill because it will definitely benefit Wyo nonres DIY/OYO hunters!
The first question I'll ask those nonres that are against this bill is what will likely happen if this doesn't pass? I don't think many nonres have considered the alternatives? This more than anything else is the reason I support this bill!
Buzz I've said it before and I'll say it again....I could care less if the WYOGA supports this bill or not! I applaud the WYOGA for introducing this bill because it will definitely benefit Wyo nonres DIY/OYO hunters!
clifhunter
Active Member
- Messages
- 416
LAST EDITED ON Feb-17-15 AT 06:01PM (MST)[p]I am with jims on this one.
>LAST EDITED ON Feb-17-15
>AT 06:01?PM (MST)
>
>I am with jims on this
>one.
Anyone that's greedy and only thinking of themselves because they have the money and it will help them would certainly be in favor of this Bill, which is just another nail in the coffin for the NAM!
>AT 06:01?PM (MST)
>
>I am with jims on this
>one.
Anyone that's greedy and only thinking of themselves because they have the money and it will help them would certainly be in favor of this Bill, which is just another nail in the coffin for the NAM!
schoolhousegrizz
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,579
As a fairly young father of 5 who loves to hunt, I hope it doesn't pass, but I'm sure it will. I'm Glad I put in for elk this year, as it may be my last elk hunt in Wyoming for quite some time. My birthday and Christmas gifts all go towards hunting. I love it, but I have 3 little girls and 2 young twin boys. Putting in for elk this year was quite a stretch. At some point you just run out of money. Family will always come first. I'll always Hunt, I still have general tags in my home state. Unfortunately my trips to Wyoming are looking far and few in between.
4
440sixpack
Guest
If the total NR quota stays the same I really don't see how it helps the NR hunter as a whole. but it will help those who want to pay more hunt more, in that respect I agree.
People who want to pay more get better everything and more of it. you'd expect the best seats at the Super Bowl to cost the same as the ones in nose bleed? think about it . hunting is not a right it's a privilege that has to be paid for.
Buzz get off the outfitters anyone with an IQ over room temperature knows why they backed this . since we're " only non residents " we have to buy our rights and we know it, so do you.
If this is what it takes bring it on I'll deal with it.
Stay thirsty my friends
People who want to pay more get better everything and more of it. you'd expect the best seats at the Super Bowl to cost the same as the ones in nose bleed? think about it . hunting is not a right it's a privilege that has to be paid for.
Buzz get off the outfitters anyone with an IQ over room temperature knows why they backed this . since we're " only non residents " we have to buy our rights and we know it, so do you.
If this is what it takes bring it on I'll deal with it.
Stay thirsty my friends
LAST EDITED ON Feb-17-15 AT 06:31PM (MST)[p]I'm considering all nonres hunters when I say this is a good thing....I'm not being selfish. With all the whacky things going on in the Wyo legislature think a little deeper about what I said in my previous post and what will likely happen if this bill doesn't pass.
I'll give you a hint on what will likely happen. How many times have Wyo res tried to increase their tag fees the past few years and it has been blasted? Who usually takes it on the head when it comes to higher priced tags, fewer tags, etc? It would't be nonres would it? If by an act of God Wyo res license fees increase...what do you think will happen? Do you think Wyo res will want a higher proportion of tags if they are paying higher fees? Again, nonres will take it on the head!
Nonres....start thinking about what may happen if this doesn't pass!
I'll give you a hint on what will likely happen. How many times have Wyo res tried to increase their tag fees the past few years and it has been blasted? Who usually takes it on the head when it comes to higher priced tags, fewer tags, etc? It would't be nonres would it? If by an act of God Wyo res license fees increase...what do you think will happen? Do you think Wyo res will want a higher proportion of tags if they are paying higher fees? Again, nonres will take it on the head!
Nonres....start thinking about what may happen if this doesn't pass!
clifhunter
Active Member
- Messages
- 416
>If the total NR quota stays
>the same I really don't
>see how it helps the
>NR hunter as a whole.
>but it will help those
>who want to pay more
>hunt more, in that
>respect I agree.
>
>People who want to pay more
>get better everything and more
>of it. you'd expect
>the best seats at the
>Super Bowl to cost the
>same as the ones in
> nose bleed?
>think about it . hunting
>is not a right it's
>a privilege that has to
>be paid for.
>
>Buzz get off the outfitters anyone
>with an IQ over room
>temperature knows why they backed
>this . since we're "
> only non residents "
> we have to
>buy our rights and we
>know it, so do you.
>
>
>If this is what it takes
>bring it on I'll deal
>with it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Stay thirsty my friends
+1 but government workers will never understand this.
>the same I really don't
>see how it helps the
>NR hunter as a whole.
>but it will help those
>who want to pay more
>hunt more, in that
>respect I agree.
>
>People who want to pay more
>get better everything and more
>of it. you'd expect
>the best seats at the
>Super Bowl to cost the
>same as the ones in
> nose bleed?
>think about it . hunting
>is not a right it's
>a privilege that has to
>be paid for.
>
>Buzz get off the outfitters anyone
>with an IQ over room
>temperature knows why they backed
>this . since we're "
> only non residents "
> we have to
>buy our rights and we
>know it, so do you.
>
>
>If this is what it takes
>bring it on I'll deal
>with it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Stay thirsty my friends
+1 but government workers will never understand this.
grosventrehunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,827
Nothing good comes from outfitter sponsored bills. They take and take but give nothing in return. Be careful what you wish for, as they won't stop with this bill.
I'm sure we haven't seen the end of WYOGA supporting whacko bills. That is exactly what I'm afraid of if the 60/40 doesn't pass! I'm sure they could care less about DIY/OTO type Wyo nonres or resident hunters. The 60/40 bill helps nonres irregardless of whether they are guided or not. I haven't mentioned it but 60/40 also benefits the WG&F with a pretty good chunk of revenue without increasing any license fees.
clifhunter
Active Member
- Messages
- 416
Well said jims!
LAST EDITED ON Feb-17-15 AT 09:11PM (MST)[p]>I'm sure we haven't seen the
>end of WYOGA supporting whacko
>bills. That is exactly
>what I'm afraid of if
>the 60/40 doesn't pass!
>I'm sure they could care
>less about DIY/OTO type Wyo
>nonres or resident hunters.
>The 60/40 bill helps nonres
>irregardless of whether they are
>guided or not. I
>haven't mentioned it but 60/40
>also benefits the WG&F with
>a pretty good chunk of
>revenue without increasing any license
>fees.
You're using a very lame argument that it doesn't raise license fees! When 20% more of the licenses will now go into a draw that costs hundreds of dollars more to draw the same tag that a guy might have drawn in the past for a lot less money it certainly does raise the license fee. That's about as lame as your argument in the past that a random draw isn't as fair as a PP system. If the theory wasn't that the G&F will gain hundreds of thousands of dollars the Bill probably wouldn't have near the chance of passing that it does with that as the benefit. Sorry, but neither theory flies!
>end of WYOGA supporting whacko
>bills. That is exactly
>what I'm afraid of if
>the 60/40 doesn't pass!
>I'm sure they could care
>less about DIY/OTO type Wyo
>nonres or resident hunters.
>The 60/40 bill helps nonres
>irregardless of whether they are
>guided or not. I
>haven't mentioned it but 60/40
>also benefits the WG&F with
>a pretty good chunk of
>revenue without increasing any license
>fees.
You're using a very lame argument that it doesn't raise license fees! When 20% more of the licenses will now go into a draw that costs hundreds of dollars more to draw the same tag that a guy might have drawn in the past for a lot less money it certainly does raise the license fee. That's about as lame as your argument in the past that a random draw isn't as fair as a PP system. If the theory wasn't that the G&F will gain hundreds of thousands of dollars the Bill probably wouldn't have near the chance of passing that it does with that as the benefit. Sorry, but neither theory flies!
4
440sixpack
Guest
GVH, how can you say outfitters give nothing in return? that's a cheap shot. do we have to go through this again?
Residents here are jealous of outfitters too it's not just a WY thing.
Stay thirsty my friends
Residents here are jealous of outfitters too it's not just a WY thing.
Stay thirsty my friends
grosventrehunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,827
LAST EDITED ON Feb-17-15 AT 09:55PM (MST)[p]Jealous of what 440? That I can help the same country they do. Or the same country you pay special prices to hunt? I also hunt all the wilderness areas I want without forking out $5,000 plus. Can you without paying an outfitter? Not seeing the jealousy at all. Next you are going to see outfitter sponsored tags being pushed down your throats. Wanna bet?
I could care less if you pay $500 or $5,000 for your tag. What I do care about is a group of freeloaders taking, but never giving back. Yes, there are a few individual outfitters that give back. However, as a whole the association does nothing to help the state, or you the NR.
I know you can't back out now since you donated and spread the hype. Your pride makes you blind, and dumb at times.
I could care less if you pay $500 or $5,000 for your tag. What I do care about is a group of freeloaders taking, but never giving back. Yes, there are a few individual outfitters that give back. However, as a whole the association does nothing to help the state, or you the NR.
I know you can't back out now since you donated and spread the hype. Your pride makes you blind, and dumb at times.
LAST EDITED ON Feb-17-15 AT 10:10PM (MST)[p]If 60/40 doesn't pass I better not hear 1 complaint from anyone that is against 60/40 when the price for regular PLUS special tags is on next years agenda and likely passes! You can bet Wyo res and outfitters could care less if Wyo nonres tag fees increase and there will likely be little to stop it! The price of a regular tag will increase and be closer to what a special tag price is right now. I hope I don't have to tell you "I told you so!"
4
440sixpack
Guest
We've been through this before. what do you expect of them? 25% of their income enough? 50% ? 75% ? What is their obligation that isn't expected of any other private enterprise ? they hire workers and pay taxes and they don't owe you anything.
I didn't say you're jealous of me, you're jealous of them. do you hate ranchers like Buzz does too? same deal. they have things and do things you wish you could.
How many examples of giving back do we need? here is just one one example of many. The Wild Sheep Foundation does many good things for the resource and outfitters like this deserve a thank you from some ingrates. need more ?
http://www.onlinehuntingauctions.co...WITH-A-7-DAY-HUNT-FOR-1-HUNTER-TRAI_i21233444
Stay thirsty my friends
I didn't say you're jealous of me, you're jealous of them. do you hate ranchers like Buzz does too? same deal. they have things and do things you wish you could.
How many examples of giving back do we need? here is just one one example of many. The Wild Sheep Foundation does many good things for the resource and outfitters like this deserve a thank you from some ingrates. need more ?
http://www.onlinehuntingauctions.co...WITH-A-7-DAY-HUNT-FOR-1-HUNTER-TRAI_i21233444
Stay thirsty my friends
schoolhousegrizz
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,579
LAST EDITED ON Feb-17-15 AT 11:58PM (MST)[p]Grosventrehunter, being a nonres and you being a resident; I must say it is pretty neat seeing that you care about nonresidents, thanks.
marburg
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,004
>Bet your ass it's going to
>pass! When hasn't our wildlife
>been about the all mighty
>$$?
That is the most predictable thing about a deeply conservative state. Folks with mind frames like that would sell their own mothers for a few extra bucks. The entire state of Wyoming is for sale and every resource in it...just gotta have the $.
>pass! When hasn't our wildlife
>been about the all mighty
>$$?
That is the most predictable thing about a deeply conservative state. Folks with mind frames like that would sell their own mothers for a few extra bucks. The entire state of Wyoming is for sale and every resource in it...just gotta have the $.
BuzzH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 6,117
LAST EDITED ON Feb-18-15 AT 07:06AM (MST)[p]440,
You're flat wrong as per usual.
A rancher that uses the publics resource (grass, water, etc.) for commercial use, they pay for it.
A logger that wants to log public resources (trees), they pay for it.
A mining company that wants to extract public mineral resources, they pay for it.
Yet, the outfitting industry, that is a consumptive user of the publics wildlife resources, pays ZERO to the GF?
I'm not asking for 25% of their profits, I'm asking them to chip in their part for wildlife management to the GF...
Pretty sad when a 12 year old Resident Hunter/Fisherman is contributing more to the GF than the entire outfitting industry.
You're flat wrong as per usual.
A rancher that uses the publics resource (grass, water, etc.) for commercial use, they pay for it.
A logger that wants to log public resources (trees), they pay for it.
A mining company that wants to extract public mineral resources, they pay for it.
Yet, the outfitting industry, that is a consumptive user of the publics wildlife resources, pays ZERO to the GF?
I'm not asking for 25% of their profits, I'm asking them to chip in their part for wildlife management to the GF...
Pretty sad when a 12 year old Resident Hunter/Fisherman is contributing more to the GF than the entire outfitting industry.
Buzz, The outfitter deal is off this post's subject but I'm actually on your side on this. Do you happen to know if outfitters in other states pay a "users fee". Alaska would likely have more guides (both fishing and hunting) than any other state. Possibly look at other state's outfitter structure and see what can be improved in Wyo?
LAST EDITED ON Feb-18-15 AT 12:50PM (MST)[p]>U guys chat it up so
>much in this forum that
>I may have miss read
>it but didn't someone say
>in another thread that wgf
>was flush with cash?
The G&F has some kind of what I guess many might consider a "slush fund" and it's purported to be around $50 million and apparently can't be touched other than for certain purposes of which I can't find anything about. I believe it has to do with supplementing the way money ebbs and flows into the Department at certain times of the year, mainly when licenses aren't being applied for in late Winter to Spring and money is slow coming in. BuzzH may be able to help out on that with his knowledge of how the Department operates and the way money has to be controlled under Legislative mandates.
>much in this forum that
>I may have miss read
>it but didn't someone say
>in another thread that wgf
>was flush with cash?
The G&F has some kind of what I guess many might consider a "slush fund" and it's purported to be around $50 million and apparently can't be touched other than for certain purposes of which I can't find anything about. I believe it has to do with supplementing the way money ebbs and flows into the Department at certain times of the year, mainly when licenses aren't being applied for in late Winter to Spring and money is slow coming in. BuzzH may be able to help out on that with his knowledge of how the Department operates and the way money has to be controlled under Legislative mandates.
quest
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,192
TOPGUN anyway they can get it through and shove it down our throats.
You're using a very lame argument that it doesn't raise license fees! When 20% more of the licenses will now go into a draw that costs hundreds of dollars more to draw the same tag that a guy might have drawn in the past for a lot less money it certainly does raise the license fee. That's about as lame as your argument in the past that a random draw isn't as fair as a PP system. If the theory wasn't that the G&F will gain hundreds of thousands of dollars the Bill probably wouldn't have near the chance of passing that it does with that as the benefit. Sorry, but neither theory flies!
You're using a very lame argument that it doesn't raise license fees! When 20% more of the licenses will now go into a draw that costs hundreds of dollars more to draw the same tag that a guy might have drawn in the past for a lot less money it certainly does raise the license fee. That's about as lame as your argument in the past that a random draw isn't as fair as a PP system. If the theory wasn't that the G&F will gain hundreds of thousands of dollars the Bill probably wouldn't have near the chance of passing that it does with that as the benefit. Sorry, but neither theory flies!
Jeff---How can that be possible when a year ago they had to make all kinds of cuts and were supposedly going down the tubes in the next year or two if they didn't get a substantial increase of money to stay afloat without more serious cuts being made? I'm not questioning your statement, but rather wondering if we're being lied to or what as to the viability of the Department if that is true. From reading the various comments the Director makes in the magazine it sounds like they're in a world of hurt.
grosventrehunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,827
This isn't a GnF sponsored bill, though they may like the extra cash flow. WYOGA knows the majority of hunters who can afford the the special fees also go outfitted. If GnF want/need more money they should stop sleeping with WYOGA and raise the resident fees. No one wins when you price out the average hunter.
440, the only difference between arguing with you and my 4 yr old is, my 4 yr old makes more sense.
440, the only difference between arguing with you and my 4 yr old is, my 4 yr old makes more sense.
jm77
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,369
>Jeff---How can that be possible when
>a year ago they had
>to make all kinds of
>cuts and were supposedly going
>down the tubes in the
>next year or two if
>they didn't get a substantial
>increase of money to stay
>afloat without more serious cuts
>being made? I'm not
>questioning your statement, but rather
>wondering if we're being lied
>to or what as to
>the viability of the Department
>if that is true. From
>reading the various comments the
>Director makes in the magazine
>it sounds like they're in
>a world of hurt.
Here we go again! You should take news articles with a grain of salt, Mike. The Dept budget was NEVER in the tank. They projected after 2016 they would need an increase in funding to maintain their previous budget. The cuts they made were to conform with Gov Mead's cuts to all state agencies, which resulted in increased savings. Then PR money went through the roof and the Dept now has millions in the bank.
But what the hell, let's do 60/40 and get some more...
>a year ago they had
>to make all kinds of
>cuts and were supposedly going
>down the tubes in the
>next year or two if
>they didn't get a substantial
>increase of money to stay
>afloat without more serious cuts
>being made? I'm not
>questioning your statement, but rather
>wondering if we're being lied
>to or what as to
>the viability of the Department
>if that is true. From
>reading the various comments the
>Director makes in the magazine
>it sounds like they're in
>a world of hurt.
Here we go again! You should take news articles with a grain of salt, Mike. The Dept budget was NEVER in the tank. They projected after 2016 they would need an increase in funding to maintain their previous budget. The cuts they made were to conform with Gov Mead's cuts to all state agencies, which resulted in increased savings. Then PR money went through the roof and the Dept now has millions in the bank.
But what the hell, let's do 60/40 and get some more...
LAST EDITED ON Feb-19-15 AT 01:09AM (MST)[p]>N.A.M. and the hunter of average
>means took another hit today.
>At least it impacts "only"
>you NR's
For sure. The changes and attempted changes in Wyoming recently have been eye opening.
I've changed my tune on a few issues, such as alternative funding. I thought the same as Buzz,that everyone seems to have a say anyway, they may as well pay for it.
but the less us NR pay in, the less we matter..We need to be footing a large part of the bill. If we dont we are screwed. alternative funding will make us irrelevant, we are already "only non residents"..
a lot of NR are getting the feeling of being painted in a corner, thinking that supporting WYOGA is their only move. WYOGA getting the support from joe average, that would otherwise never support them are the unintended consequences of 90/10, and the fear that lope,elk and deer will be next. Personally I will never support WYOGA, but lots of guys will go off half cocked and jump in bed with them.
Sorry for going off on a tangent, this is all very frustrating.
>means took another hit today.
>At least it impacts "only"
>you NR's
For sure. The changes and attempted changes in Wyoming recently have been eye opening.
I've changed my tune on a few issues, such as alternative funding. I thought the same as Buzz,that everyone seems to have a say anyway, they may as well pay for it.
but the less us NR pay in, the less we matter..We need to be footing a large part of the bill. If we dont we are screwed. alternative funding will make us irrelevant, we are already "only non residents"..
a lot of NR are getting the feeling of being painted in a corner, thinking that supporting WYOGA is their only move. WYOGA getting the support from joe average, that would otherwise never support them are the unintended consequences of 90/10, and the fear that lope,elk and deer will be next. Personally I will never support WYOGA, but lots of guys will go off half cocked and jump in bed with them.
Sorry for going off on a tangent, this is all very frustrating.
Wyoelkhunter
Member
- Messages
- 7
I fail to see how this is good for either residents or non-residents. We should stick to a ratio of resident to non-resident fees that is similar to what other states charge. I dont like the idea of raising fees to the point that we end up with a european type system. The North American Model works. This bill reduces participation by the average hunters and favors those with means.
Im a WY resident. I pay a few hundred bucks in license fees now. I dont have a problem with paying my fair share if its needed to maintain our wildlife programs. This pitting resident versus non-resident just makes us all less united in fighting for the sound wildlife management policies needed in todays world.
Im a WY resident. I pay a few hundred bucks in license fees now. I dont have a problem with paying my fair share if its needed to maintain our wildlife programs. This pitting resident versus non-resident just makes us all less united in fighting for the sound wildlife management policies needed in todays world.
LAST EDITED ON Feb-19-15 AT 07:38AM (MST)[p]Reddog's statement above is exactly what I'm afraid of...."The less us NR pay in, the less we matter..We need to be footing a large part of the bill. If we dont we are screwed. alternative funding will make us irrelevant, we are already "only non residents"..
With all the whacko legislation the past couple of years nonres ave joes have reason to be spooked! If you are a DIY/OYO hunter in Wyo and 60/40 doesn't pass you better be ready to pay higher prices for tags and possibly loose tags to others willing to pay higher priced fees in future years! The 60/40 would solidify things for nonres in the future. If 60/40 fails be ready for a lot of battles. Mark my word....DIY/OYO nonres hunters will likely have very little voice against the WYOGA and Wyo res!
With all the whacko legislation the past couple of years nonres ave joes have reason to be spooked! If you are a DIY/OYO hunter in Wyo and 60/40 doesn't pass you better be ready to pay higher prices for tags and possibly loose tags to others willing to pay higher priced fees in future years! The 60/40 would solidify things for nonres in the future. If 60/40 fails be ready for a lot of battles. Mark my word....DIY/OYO nonres hunters will likely have very little voice against the WYOGA and Wyo res!
H
hunter77
Guest
I am a non resident and I put in every year high dollar already so for me this will only increase my odds of drawing so I like this bill. I would rather have price increases than non resident tag reductions. Plus high dollar tags are still a lot less than guided hunts.
I agree REDDOG, a couple years ago BUZZ and TOPGUN chewed me up and spit me out because I'm against anybody else paying for F & G but us the hunters. Sure there are lots of mandated programs shoved down their throats. I think it is all in the plan to get rid of hunting and make us dependent. (PERIOD) Ask PETA if they really care about the Spotted Owl or are they just anti people? I know what their answer is.
DZ
DZ
4
440sixpack
Guest
Buzz you're pretty funny. outfitters do pay a fee on private land, and the NR hunter the outfitter takes owns the public land just as much as you do. that's why they call it federal land not Buzz's land. why are you ( or the state you think you run ) entitled to a cent ? be specific.
The NR paid an excessive amount for his tag and the outfitter takes care of the USFS requirements so end of story.
If you're hurting that the outfitter doesn't pay you to hunt on public land then make that into a bill and settle it. don't turn it into an outfitter bashing arguement because they're not doing something they have no obligation to do.
I hope they raise the tag fees just to end some of this childish nonsense. pay to play this is America get over it.
Stay thirsty my friends
The NR paid an excessive amount for his tag and the outfitter takes care of the USFS requirements so end of story.
If you're hurting that the outfitter doesn't pay you to hunt on public land then make that into a bill and settle it. don't turn it into an outfitter bashing arguement because they're not doing something they have no obligation to do.
I hope they raise the tag fees just to end some of this childish nonsense. pay to play this is America get over it.
Stay thirsty my friends
>>Jeff---How can that be possible when
>>a year ago they had
>>to make all kinds of
>>cuts and were supposedly going
>>down the tubes in the
>>next year or two if
>>they didn't get a substantial
>>increase of money to stay
>>afloat without more serious cuts
>>being made? I'm not
>>questioning your statement, but rather
>>wondering if we're being lied
>>to or what as to
>>the viability of the Department
>>if that is true. From
>>reading the various comments the
>>Director makes in the magazine
>>it sounds like they're in
>>a world of hurt.
>
>Here we go again! You should
>take news articles with a
>grain of salt, Mike. The
>Dept budget was NEVER in
>the tank. They projected after
>2016 they would need an
>increase in funding to maintain
>their previous budget. The cuts
>they made were to conform
>with Gov Mead's cuts
>to all state agencies, which
>resulted in increased savings. Then
>PR money went through the
>roof and the Dept now
>has millions in the bank.
>
>
>
>But what the hell, let's do
>60/40 and get some more...
>
That's exactly why I asked you the question Jeff. I know the Dept. had to do the 6% cuts like the others. However, it would appear the G&F are a bunch of liars from what you're saying when it would appear we can't believe their own newsletters that they put out in the media. Why all of a sudden did PR money go through the roof the way they dole it out, as I haven't heard of any changes that would have done that for the Dept.? Thanks!
>>a year ago they had
>>to make all kinds of
>>cuts and were supposedly going
>>down the tubes in the
>>next year or two if
>>they didn't get a substantial
>>increase of money to stay
>>afloat without more serious cuts
>>being made? I'm not
>>questioning your statement, but rather
>>wondering if we're being lied
>>to or what as to
>>the viability of the Department
>>if that is true. From
>>reading the various comments the
>>Director makes in the magazine
>>it sounds like they're in
>>a world of hurt.
>
>Here we go again! You should
>take news articles with a
>grain of salt, Mike. The
>Dept budget was NEVER in
>the tank. They projected after
>2016 they would need an
>increase in funding to maintain
>their previous budget. The cuts
>they made were to conform
>with Gov Mead's cuts
>to all state agencies, which
>resulted in increased savings. Then
>PR money went through the
>roof and the Dept now
>has millions in the bank.
>
>
>
>But what the hell, let's do
>60/40 and get some more...
>
That's exactly why I asked you the question Jeff. I know the Dept. had to do the 6% cuts like the others. However, it would appear the G&F are a bunch of liars from what you're saying when it would appear we can't believe their own newsletters that they put out in the media. Why all of a sudden did PR money go through the roof the way they dole it out, as I haven't heard of any changes that would have done that for the Dept.? Thanks!
quest
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,192
Here ya go BuzzH http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2005/06/WyomingOutfittersaid.htm
BuzzH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 6,117
LAST EDITED ON Feb-19-15 AT 01:43PM (MST)[p]A one time donation of $1,000, nearly 10 years ago, is what you can come up with...don't go all out! Considering the annual operating budget for the GF is $74,000,000, I don't find a one time, 1k donation 9 years ago, to be doing much.
The NWTF recently donated $5,000 to access yes...and they don't make a profit from public wildlife resources.
National Wild Turkey Foundation donates to Game and Fish to create access for hunting and fishing
CASPER ? The National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) recently donated $5,000 to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department's Access Yes program. This donation helps to secure access for hunters and anglers across Wyoming, through the Private Lands Public Wildlife (PLPW) Access Program. That program is designed to support landowners who want to grant hunters and anglers access to private land.
The NWTF recently donated $5,000 to access yes...and they don't make a profit from public wildlife resources.
National Wild Turkey Foundation donates to Game and Fish to create access for hunting and fishing
CASPER ? The National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) recently donated $5,000 to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department's Access Yes program. This donation helps to secure access for hunters and anglers across Wyoming, through the Private Lands Public Wildlife (PLPW) Access Program. That program is designed to support landowners who want to grant hunters and anglers access to private land.
That $1000 donation in the link was 10 years ago in case you missed the 2005 date! I also can't understand why people think NR hunters and fishermen that fund the bulk of the G&F budget think that it makes us more relevant in having any say when it's the Legislators who make all the financial decisions, as well as other major decisions like we're discussing right now. They are the ones who mandate everything the G&F has to do and spend money on and we don't vote for or against them. What do you think the chances of the recent 90/10 tag split not passing would have been if it weren't for the WYOGA fighting it and it was only NR emails going in? IMHO not much of one and that's why this 60/40 to 40/60 percentage reversal will probably pass because it's "only about NRs"! When BuzzH tells us that prominent organizations want fees increased for residents and are almost begging for it to happen and it only gets a quick look by the Legislators and is tossed in file 13, what does that tell you of any chances that the NR might have to help ourselves? Face it folks, the NR is a tool to be used in every state where they are a NR and Wyoming is just catching up with the Jones in this regard and it may get worse.
whitwell_56
Active Member
- Messages
- 348
Actually, it might not increase your odds. If more people move to the special draw than the additional tags, you could have worse odds.
Agree with everything else you say though.
Agree with everything else you say though.
>Reddog's statement above is exactly what
>I'm afraid of...."The less us
>NR pay in, the less
>we matter..We need to be
>footing a large part of
>the bill. If we dont
>we are screwed. alternative funding
>will make us irrelevant, we
>are already "only non residents"..
>
>
>With all the whacko legislation the
>past couple of years nonres
>ave joes have reason to
>be spooked! If you
>are a DIY/OYO hunter in
>Wyo and 60/40 doesn't pass
>you better be ready to
>pay higher prices for tags
>and possibly loose tags to
>others willing to pay higher
>priced fees in future years!
> The 60/40 would solidify
>things for nonres in the
>future. If 60/40 fails
>be ready for a lot
>of battles. Mark my
>word....DIY/OYO nonres hunters will likely
>have very little voice against
>the WYOGA and Wyo res!
>
How in the world do you figure that flipping the percentage to 60% Special is going to solidify things? NRs have no say in anything and never will, as we don't have a vote anywhere other than the state we live in. The last I looked in the G&F website about funding I remember a pie chart showed that 55% of the money the G&F takes in is from licenses, PP fees, etc. and almost 80% of that money is from NRs. How much more do you think it will take for anyone in Wyoming to listen to what NRs think. I can tell you the answer and it's that it won't matter how much we spend to fund the G&F and that should have been able to be seen by now by anyone with half a brain. We have no say and that's why "we're only NRs" to the Legislators!
>I'm afraid of...."The less us
>NR pay in, the less
>we matter..We need to be
>footing a large part of
>the bill. If we dont
>we are screwed. alternative funding
>will make us irrelevant, we
>are already "only non residents"..
>
>
>With all the whacko legislation the
>past couple of years nonres
>ave joes have reason to
>be spooked! If you
>are a DIY/OYO hunter in
>Wyo and 60/40 doesn't pass
>you better be ready to
>pay higher prices for tags
>and possibly loose tags to
>others willing to pay higher
>priced fees in future years!
> The 60/40 would solidify
>things for nonres in the
>future. If 60/40 fails
>be ready for a lot
>of battles. Mark my
>word....DIY/OYO nonres hunters will likely
>have very little voice against
>the WYOGA and Wyo res!
>
How in the world do you figure that flipping the percentage to 60% Special is going to solidify things? NRs have no say in anything and never will, as we don't have a vote anywhere other than the state we live in. The last I looked in the G&F website about funding I remember a pie chart showed that 55% of the money the G&F takes in is from licenses, PP fees, etc. and almost 80% of that money is from NRs. How much more do you think it will take for anyone in Wyoming to listen to what NRs think. I can tell you the answer and it's that it won't matter how much we spend to fund the G&F and that should have been able to be seen by now by anyone with half a brain. We have no say and that's why "we're only NRs" to the Legislators!
dack77
Active Member
- Messages
- 209
Buzz,
You are looking at things like a typical politician does...how can we squeeze every penny out of every organization that we can.
The problem with your statement where you referred to those industries is in every instance those industries are directly taking a resource from the land. Outfitters do not "take" from the land. The hunter is the one that "takes" from the land and they already pay that fee for being the consumptive user. What exactly do you feel that the outfitter takes from the land? The outfitters are making money off of the hunter who pays them their guide fee and the hunter pays the fee for the resource that is taken. What you are asking is that both the hunter and the outfitter now pay a fee for the same animal. Obviously you are ok with this but I can see why others would not see eye to eye with you on this.
You are looking at things like a typical politician does...how can we squeeze every penny out of every organization that we can.
The problem with your statement where you referred to those industries is in every instance those industries are directly taking a resource from the land. Outfitters do not "take" from the land. The hunter is the one that "takes" from the land and they already pay that fee for being the consumptive user. What exactly do you feel that the outfitter takes from the land? The outfitters are making money off of the hunter who pays them their guide fee and the hunter pays the fee for the resource that is taken. What you are asking is that both the hunter and the outfitter now pay a fee for the same animal. Obviously you are ok with this but I can see why others would not see eye to eye with you on this.
BuzzH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 6,117
Imaginary dack77 with no profile...let me guess WYOGA member.
The hunters are not paying for an animal, they're paying for an opportunity at an animal and management of same, not the animal.
Management costs money, and that management should come from all who use that resource, in particular those that extract that resource in a consumptive manner. I would include those that make a financial profit from the consumptive use of that resource, and most certainly they should help pay for the management costs of what they consume.
If you feel otherwise, I'm sure you're quite comfortable with welfare and are used to others paying your freight for you.
The hunters are not paying for an animal, they're paying for an opportunity at an animal and management of same, not the animal.
Management costs money, and that management should come from all who use that resource, in particular those that extract that resource in a consumptive manner. I would include those that make a financial profit from the consumptive use of that resource, and most certainly they should help pay for the management costs of what they consume.
If you feel otherwise, I'm sure you're quite comfortable with welfare and are used to others paying your freight for you.
quest
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,192
BuzzH on this subject.The Outfitters pay's for a guide licences to guide in WY. If you don't think they do there fair share then change it. Not everyone go's out of there way to help wildlife.
http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/7521.pdf
http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/7521.pdf
dack77
Active Member
- Messages
- 209
LAST EDITED ON Feb-20-15 AT 00:48AM (MST)[p]So should fast food restaurants pay their fair share for buying beef from ranchers who graze their cattle on leased land? Should we start charging tire companies for having their tires on the trucks that guides use while they are out with their clients hunting? See how silly all of that sounds? At what point do you stop with the cascading effect on who pays for what? You seem to think that they should go all in. You are so hard headed that you can't see the forest for the trees. Again, guides don't consume any wildlife resources. They benefit from the hunter that pays for that resource, whether they are successful or not. It doesn't matter if it's a chance like you want to call it, they are paying for that animal.
Wyoelkhunter
Member
- Messages
- 7
Come on guys, this is bs. Those that would like to see us all off our public lands and see our sport go away are sitting back laughing. While we are pitted against each other our unity to oppose them dissolves. I think a lot of you come hear to argue and dont give a flip about the result.
Its no wonder these kind of laws are coming up again and again. We should use this timenand energy to make a lot of noise defending wildlife and hunters, not just our own self interests. If more money is needed to manage wildlife we need to find a workable solution. If that solution means higher fees then it should be across the board using a reasonable ratio between Res and NR..
Its no wonder the legislature pay us no mind. We are like a bunch of kids arguing with each other. Instead we should be putting heat on the politicos to make sure our wildlife and lands are well managed and not being abused by opposing interests.
Its no wonder these kind of laws are coming up again and again. We should use this timenand energy to make a lot of noise defending wildlife and hunters, not just our own self interests. If more money is needed to manage wildlife we need to find a workable solution. If that solution means higher fees then it should be across the board using a reasonable ratio between Res and NR..
Its no wonder the legislature pay us no mind. We are like a bunch of kids arguing with each other. Instead we should be putting heat on the politicos to make sure our wildlife and lands are well managed and not being abused by opposing interests.
I bet most would be surprised how much expense an outfitter has. Takes a ton of money to stay in business now a days. The general liability Ins. has to be thru the roof! Never mind employees, workers comp, unemployment, matching SS & medicare. Leases, vehicles, horses, equipment and its upkeep. If they are legit, being in that field would cost a ton.
Probably not much left over guys.
I for one, can't just assume they have money running out of their ears!
Way to much overhead for my taste. Never mind all the work and a$$ kissing.
Probably not much left over guys.
I for one, can't just assume they have money running out of their ears!
Way to much overhead for my taste. Never mind all the work and a$$ kissing.
BuzzH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 6,117
wyoelkhunter,
Just curious how much time you've spent at the legislature this session?
Can you point out all the bills that really help wildlife, public lands, and wildlife habitat that were introduced this session?
The view from my numerous trips to Cheyenne, and time spent in lobbying efforts, is that a majority of time is being spent fighting horrendous legislation.
While it would be nice to focus on things that help wildlife, etc., we cant sit back and let bad legislation pass.
I'm also of the opinion that "uniting" hunters is akin to pi$$ing up a rope. I see how many "concerned" hunters show up at GF meetings, commission meetings, and legislative sessions. The concern for wildlife, hunting, the NAM, etc. seems to be a pretty thin line...to put it mildly.
Every excuse under the sun why they cant find the time to support wildlife, hunting, fishing, recreation, etc.
The problem isnt in-fighting between special interests within the ranks of hunters, no matter how much you want it to be or how many times you say it. Its 99% about the average hunter being a apathetic, uninformed, and unwilling to help in any way beyond "gettin' their elk" every year and buying a tag once a year.
Those in the arena see what's going on, and they capitalize on hunter apathy, big-time...whether it be the legislature or special interests.
Those few that bother to take a stand and make a difference, are forced to focus almost entirely on keeping what we have.
Just the way it is...and unlikely to change anytime soon.
Just curious how much time you've spent at the legislature this session?
Can you point out all the bills that really help wildlife, public lands, and wildlife habitat that were introduced this session?
The view from my numerous trips to Cheyenne, and time spent in lobbying efforts, is that a majority of time is being spent fighting horrendous legislation.
While it would be nice to focus on things that help wildlife, etc., we cant sit back and let bad legislation pass.
I'm also of the opinion that "uniting" hunters is akin to pi$$ing up a rope. I see how many "concerned" hunters show up at GF meetings, commission meetings, and legislative sessions. The concern for wildlife, hunting, the NAM, etc. seems to be a pretty thin line...to put it mildly.
Every excuse under the sun why they cant find the time to support wildlife, hunting, fishing, recreation, etc.
The problem isnt in-fighting between special interests within the ranks of hunters, no matter how much you want it to be or how many times you say it. Its 99% about the average hunter being a apathetic, uninformed, and unwilling to help in any way beyond "gettin' their elk" every year and buying a tag once a year.
Those in the arena see what's going on, and they capitalize on hunter apathy, big-time...whether it be the legislature or special interests.
Those few that bother to take a stand and make a difference, are forced to focus almost entirely on keeping what we have.
Just the way it is...and unlikely to change anytime soon.
4
440sixpack
Guest
Buzz, I can't answer your question without you answering mine first. what are the outfitters required to pay ?
A thinking person might add that since the outfitters help the state pour the pork to us NR hunters with all the fee increases they contribute in that mannor? no? they can't win for losing.
The qustion to follow my first question is rather than bash outfitters at every turn why don't you figure out what they should pay and push for legislation ? we know you like legislation. isn't that how it should work? or should outfitters just fork it all over ? I don't get your point.
I'm not sure, but as far as I know there are no states that charges outfitters a fee for hunting. if there is how is it structured?
Stay thirsty my friends
A thinking person might add that since the outfitters help the state pour the pork to us NR hunters with all the fee increases they contribute in that mannor? no? they can't win for losing.
The qustion to follow my first question is rather than bash outfitters at every turn why don't you figure out what they should pay and push for legislation ? we know you like legislation. isn't that how it should work? or should outfitters just fork it all over ? I don't get your point.
I'm not sure, but as far as I know there are no states that charges outfitters a fee for hunting. if there is how is it structured?
Stay thirsty my friends
grosventrehunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,827
Ask yourself this. Why do you think wyoga is pushing this bill? Is it because the ones who pay the special prices on average go outfitted over the ones who do not. What this does (wyoga knows this) is push out the average sportsman who don't have the extra money to hire an outfitter. WYOGA wants the rich guy, not the diy guy who's raising 5 kids on a modest income. This is bad for hunting, just ask Utah. Do you want to see the future of outfitter based logic. Look no further than New Mexico.
BuzzH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 6,117
440,
You seem confused, as usual.
Where do you get that I like legislation in regard to wildlife, GF, habitat, and hunting issues?
Can you name the last piece of legislation that I brought to a legislator?
I don't like legislation at all when it comes to wildlife, public lands, etc. You're dealing with Legislators that don't understand anything to do with wildlife, wildlife habitat, public lands management, recreation, etc. etc. etc. A vast majority don't even hunt or fish, and know so little about wildlife and hunting its frightening.
To ice the ineptitude of the Legislature, there are many with a political, and/or personal ax to grind against the GF and the hunting public.
The most I want the legislature to do, is very sparingly pass legislation that gives the GF commission the authority it needs to do what's best for wildlife, habitat, hunters, and the GF. That was the intent, and that model worked for a long time.
However, over time the Legislature has taken a new role in attempting to by-pass the desires of the average hunter (their constituents), the GF, and the GF commission and assume a role as wildlife managers. This was all brought on by special interests that found that they couldn't get their way through the Commission when it came to "pouring the pork" as you say, to the average guy.
The Commission has become the side-show to the three-ring circus that is the Legislature, rather than the decision making leader it should be.
Hunter apathy has allowed this all to happen, along with hunters not being willing to vote out those that don't understand or care about hunting, fishing, recreation, wildlife habitat, etc. etc.
But, then again, I cant really be too down on the Legislature when 99% of hunters don't even realize they're getting the pipe laid to them...and those that do, don't do much to stop it.
Carry on...
You seem confused, as usual.
Where do you get that I like legislation in regard to wildlife, GF, habitat, and hunting issues?
Can you name the last piece of legislation that I brought to a legislator?
I don't like legislation at all when it comes to wildlife, public lands, etc. You're dealing with Legislators that don't understand anything to do with wildlife, wildlife habitat, public lands management, recreation, etc. etc. etc. A vast majority don't even hunt or fish, and know so little about wildlife and hunting its frightening.
To ice the ineptitude of the Legislature, there are many with a political, and/or personal ax to grind against the GF and the hunting public.
The most I want the legislature to do, is very sparingly pass legislation that gives the GF commission the authority it needs to do what's best for wildlife, habitat, hunters, and the GF. That was the intent, and that model worked for a long time.
However, over time the Legislature has taken a new role in attempting to by-pass the desires of the average hunter (their constituents), the GF, and the GF commission and assume a role as wildlife managers. This was all brought on by special interests that found that they couldn't get their way through the Commission when it came to "pouring the pork" as you say, to the average guy.
The Commission has become the side-show to the three-ring circus that is the Legislature, rather than the decision making leader it should be.
Hunter apathy has allowed this all to happen, along with hunters not being willing to vote out those that don't understand or care about hunting, fishing, recreation, wildlife habitat, etc. etc.
But, then again, I cant really be too down on the Legislature when 99% of hunters don't even realize they're getting the pipe laid to them...and those that do, don't do much to stop it.
Carry on...
jm77
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,369
>440,
>
>You seem confused, as usual.
>
>Where do you get that I
>like legislation in regard to
>wildlife, GF, habitat, and hunting
>issues?
>
>Can you name the last piece
>of legislation that I brought
>to a legislator?
>
>I don't like legislation at all
>when it comes to wildlife,
>public lands, etc. You're dealing
>with Legislators that don't understand
>anything to do with wildlife,
>wildlife habitat, public lands management,
>recreation, etc. etc. etc. A
>vast majority don't even hunt
>or fish, and know so
>little about wildlife and hunting
>its frightening.
>
>To ice the ineptitude of the
>Legislature, there are many with
>a political, and/or personal ax
>to grind against the GF
>and the hunting public.
>
>The most I want the legislature
>to do, is very sparingly
>pass legislation that gives the
>GF commission the authority it
>needs to do what's best
>for wildlife, habitat, hunters, and
>the GF. That was the
>intent, and that model worked
>for a long time.
>
>However, over time the Legislature has
>taken a new role in
>attempting to by-pass the desires
>of the average hunter (their
>constituents), the GF, and the
>GF commission and assume a
>role as wildlife managers. This
>was all brought on by
>special interests that found that
>they couldn't get their way
>through the Commission when it
>came to "pouring the pork"
>as you say, to the
>average guy.
>
>The Commission has become the side-show
>to the three-ring circus that
>is the Legislature, rather than
>the decision making leader it
>should be.
>
>Hunter apathy has allowed this all
>to happen, along with hunters
>not being willing to vote
>out those that don't understand
>or care about hunting, fishing,
>recreation, wildlife habitat, etc. etc.
>
>
>But, then again, I cant really
>be too down on the
>Legislature when 99% of hunters
>don't even realize they're getting
>the pipe laid to them...and
>those that do, don't do
>much to stop it.
>
>Carry on...
>
All of you on here that think things will all be better if we just hold hands and have a 'sing-a-long' need to carefully read what Buzz wrote above.
He's 100% right...
>
>You seem confused, as usual.
>
>Where do you get that I
>like legislation in regard to
>wildlife, GF, habitat, and hunting
>issues?
>
>Can you name the last piece
>of legislation that I brought
>to a legislator?
>
>I don't like legislation at all
>when it comes to wildlife,
>public lands, etc. You're dealing
>with Legislators that don't understand
>anything to do with wildlife,
>wildlife habitat, public lands management,
>recreation, etc. etc. etc. A
>vast majority don't even hunt
>or fish, and know so
>little about wildlife and hunting
>its frightening.
>
>To ice the ineptitude of the
>Legislature, there are many with
>a political, and/or personal ax
>to grind against the GF
>and the hunting public.
>
>The most I want the legislature
>to do, is very sparingly
>pass legislation that gives the
>GF commission the authority it
>needs to do what's best
>for wildlife, habitat, hunters, and
>the GF. That was the
>intent, and that model worked
>for a long time.
>
>However, over time the Legislature has
>taken a new role in
>attempting to by-pass the desires
>of the average hunter (their
>constituents), the GF, and the
>GF commission and assume a
>role as wildlife managers. This
>was all brought on by
>special interests that found that
>they couldn't get their way
>through the Commission when it
>came to "pouring the pork"
>as you say, to the
>average guy.
>
>The Commission has become the side-show
>to the three-ring circus that
>is the Legislature, rather than
>the decision making leader it
>should be.
>
>Hunter apathy has allowed this all
>to happen, along with hunters
>not being willing to vote
>out those that don't understand
>or care about hunting, fishing,
>recreation, wildlife habitat, etc. etc.
>
>
>But, then again, I cant really
>be too down on the
>Legislature when 99% of hunters
>don't even realize they're getting
>the pipe laid to them...and
>those that do, don't do
>much to stop it.
>
>Carry on...
>
All of you on here that think things will all be better if we just hold hands and have a 'sing-a-long' need to carefully read what Buzz wrote above.
He's 100% right...
4
440sixpack
Guest
Buzz, you seemed excited about your efforts to cut NR quotas so I assumed you liked to be involved in legislation. you should like legislation because you're a good politician, you didn't come close to answering my questions.
What should outfitters pay?
Do other states make outfitters pay?
If outfitters are going to get blamed for raising NR fees shouldn't they in turn get credit for bringing money to G&F ?
GVH, maybe the guy with 5 kids can't afford to go to Disney world either, who do we blame for that? just because you pay an extra $500 for an elk tag doesn't change anything when it comes to outfitters. it just means you have $500 less to spend on an outfitter if money is an issue at all.
Stay thirsty my friends
What should outfitters pay?
Do other states make outfitters pay?
If outfitters are going to get blamed for raising NR fees shouldn't they in turn get credit for bringing money to G&F ?
GVH, maybe the guy with 5 kids can't afford to go to Disney world either, who do we blame for that? just because you pay an extra $500 for an elk tag doesn't change anything when it comes to outfitters. it just means you have $500 less to spend on an outfitter if money is an issue at all.
Stay thirsty my friends
BuzzH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 6,117
440,
Go back and read, slowly this time...its not about tag allocations or 78 more sheep, moose, goat, and bison tags going to residents. Never was.
To YOU it was...typical of many in your generation.
Your failure to read sign isn't my problem and if you don't realize what this is all about by now, you never will.
Good luck on getting your sheep tag, I'm burning my moose points this year.
Go back and read, slowly this time...its not about tag allocations or 78 more sheep, moose, goat, and bison tags going to residents. Never was.
To YOU it was...typical of many in your generation.
Your failure to read sign isn't my problem and if you don't realize what this is all about by now, you never will.
Good luck on getting your sheep tag, I'm burning my moose points this year.
grosventrehunter
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,827
440, your ignorance is showing again. Most people with 5 kids will never see the inside of Disneyland for the simple reason of cost. Not sure comparing Disneyland to hunting makes much sense other than you acting like their top character goofy. You just don't seem to get it but that is completely understandable from all your posts. You have an association trying to change laws that affect so many hunters, and the only one who benefits from it is wyoga. What you're not understanding is if wyoga get this bill passed today, tomorrow its outfitter sponsored tags etc etc etc. Wilderness law anyone?
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.
