90/10 not going away...

My thoughts is I really don't know to be honest. I mean it would be cool for 90/10 split on LQ tags such as sheep,moose,mnt. goat and LQ tags for other species. but what in some areas you gain a tag or 2. Im fine with the system right now cause im use to it. So as of now I am neutral.

I haven't sat down to break the numbers down looking at it from both sides.

I know jim77 and buzz have the facts about it all and have the numbers to break it down.
 
BuzzH said:
Looks like a new website up and running about 90/10.

www.307hunter.com

307Hunter.com

www.307hunter.com www.307hunter.com

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

New website....same people.

Mountain Pursuit
307Hunter.com is managed by Mountain Pursuit, a 501(c)(3) western states hunting advocacy nonprofit, founded by a 5th Generation Wyomingite, and headquartered in Jackson. Mountain Pursuit advocates Fair Chase, Resident Preference and Wildlife Conservation. More at www.mtnpursuit.org.
 
Might as well get on the same page as all the other western states. Meanwhile Colorado still kicks down 35% to nonresidents, not including landowner vouchers and OTC tags.
 
rocky2track said:
New website....same people.

Mountain Pursuit
307Hunter.com is managed by Mountain Pursuit, a 501(c)(3) western states hunting advocacy nonprofit, founded by a 5th Generation Wyomingite, and headquartered in Jackson. Mountain Pursuit advocates Fair Chase, Resident Preference and Wildlife Conservation. More at www.mtnpursuit.org.
Click to expand...
This guy is a clown,
 
Non resident here and am against it, but in all honesty my opinion doesn’t matter..... I just think that the group paying the most shouldn’t be snubbed with tags. I’m fine paying the fees, but don’t like getting blamed for overcrowding,or the decrease of deer in g and h. That non resident tag cut in g and h a few years ago was un warranted in my opinion. We’ll never get those tags back either. I am also in favor of the later non resident elk draw, it only makes sense.

I think the 90/10 split will have a negative effect on non resident point creep too. Man I wish states would just get away from that pyramid scheme.

Buzz, in the old thread from a few months back I asked about antelope allocation and the loss in profits to the state if a 90/10 split went through. Not sure if you didn’t see the post, or maybe didn’t want to reply, but I’m curious. Did the state crunch the numbers on the revenue loss of antelope? I’d have to pull up the old thread and look at my rough numbers, but I thought it was somewhere around 5 million loss.

Guess this is a good topic for an early spring evening!
 
90/10 split on antelope won't change non-residents getting 50% of the antelope tags. It will mean residents will get 10% more of the premium areas. Residents just don't apply for all the tags allotted them in the initial draw.
 
I believe I took that info account when crunching the numbers. The remainder of the tags are reduced price doe tags, so therefor the profit wouldn’t be made up. Could be wrong and if I find time I’ll dig up the numbers again. Problem is, last time I crunched numbers I was working with 2017 data.

Jm77, is your response based off of someone looking at the data and crunching numbers?Genuine question, with no aggression (Hard to interpret attitude in writing).
 
From what I understand the 50% nonres tag deal is a farce! Res will get 90% of the high demand tags and nonres will get the remaining chitty tags! It may sound like a great deal but in reality it stinks!

Colo remains the top nonres-friendly state in the Western US. Colo understands how important nonres are to local economies! If Wyo pulls the plug on nonres their small town business's better be prepared for a chunk less cash at their cash registers!
 
It would decrease NR draw odds a lot more than it would increase resident draw odds.

At least we're all allowed voice our opinions on the issue. :)
 
with a 90/10 split how would this affect the # of NR tags for Region G and H for deer? Since there isn't a resident quota would they just leave the # of as is?
 
jims said:
From what I understand the 50% nonres tag deal is a farce! Res will get 90% of the high demand tags and nonres will get the remaining chitty tags! It may sound like a great deal but in reality it stinks!

Colo remains the top nonres-friendly state in the Western US. Colo understands how important nonres are to local economies! If Wyo pulls the plug on nonres their small town business's better be prepared for a chunk less cash at their cash registers!
Click to expand...

Really?

Does CO allow NR's to apply for Ranching for wildlife tags?

Does CO give NR 20-25% of their sheep, moose, and goat tags?

How about the high demand deer and elk tags? What percentage do NR's get?

Oh, I know you're saying they're "generous" by giving NR a bunch of crap tags in OTC elk units.

How "generous"...
 
Colo nonres get 35% of big game deer, elk, and antelope tags except for units that take 6 pts+ over a 3 year period. Nonres get 20% of tags in units that take 6+ pts. The worse case senerio for Colo nonres deer and elk is 20%...twice what is being considered in Wyo! Not to mention landowner tags that are OTC. That is pretty darn generous! To top it off, most of Colo elk units are OTC for elk! That's a heck of a deal for nonres if you ask me! Most nonres are tickled to death to come to Colo each year and spend their money and have a good hunt with family and friends.

Yes, Colo is definitely THE most generous state in the Western US and I'm pretty proud of it....especially when I know what nonres do for the local economies!

The BS about Wyo antelope is a joke! It's merely wording to make it sound like limited nonres antelope tags aren't being impacted. 10% of limited antelope tags is mighty sparse!

Buzz, if Wyo converts over to 10% nonres tags and Colo offers 35% or at worse 20% of deer, elk, and antelope tags to nonres….yes Colo is super generous....no...if...and...or buts! Colo would offer 2 to 3x more tags than Wyo....not to mention all the OTC elk tags.

Buzz, it would be great to see you fight for nonres "On Your Own" hunting rights! How about it?
 
Slightlysober said:
with a 90/10 split how would this affect the # of NR tags for Region G and H for deer? Since there isn't a resident quota would they just leave the # of as is?
Click to expand...

It would in the sense that less people will put in to the LE draw and apply for general.
 
jims said:
Colo nonres get 35% of big game deer, elk, and antelope tags except for units that take 6 pts+ over a 3 year period. Nonres get 20% of tags in units that take 6+ pts. The worse case senerio for Colo nonres deer and elk is 20%...twice what is being considered in Wyo! Not to mention landowner tags that are OTC. That is pretty darn generous! To top it off, most of Colo elk units are OTC for elk! That's a heck of a deal for nonres if you ask me! Most nonres are tickled to death to come to Colo each year and spend their money and have a good hunt with family and friends.

Yes, Colo is definitely THE most generous state in the Western US and I'm pretty proud of it....especially when I know what nonres do for the local economies!

The BS about Wyo antelope is a joke! It's merely wording to make it sound like limited nonres antelope tags aren't being impacted. 10% of limited antelope tags is mighty sparse!

Buzz, if Wyo converts over to 10% nonres tags and Colo offers 35% or at worse 20% of deer, elk, and antelope tags to nonres….yes Colo is super generous....no...if...and...or buts! Colo would offer 2 to 3x more tags than Wyo....not to mention all the OTC elk tags.

Buzz, it would be great to see you fight for nonres "On Your Own" hunting rights! How about it?
Click to expand...

Why don't you fight for NR sheep, moose, and goat quotas in Colorado that compare to Wyoming?

Why don't you fight for NR's to be allowed to apply for ranching for wildlife tags?

It would be great, just one time, to see you even think about anyone other than yourself. How about it?
 
Any nonresident who doesn’t like it head on over to the WY outfitters and guide association and make a donation 😆, They may make you hire a guide and keep you out of the wilderness, but I’ll give them credit that they do lobby for NR opportunity.
 
I am glad Colorado gives out more nonresident tags than any other state.. U can keep all Ur Colorado tags any way... Ill take a general Wyoming elk tag or deer tag any day of the week and twice on Sunday.. So U can keep what ever U have in Colorado
 
Buzz, you are showing your true colors and like usual changing the subject. What are your thoughts about Wyo converting to 90/10 for nonres deer, elk, and antelope? Are you for or against it? Can you please answer the question?

To let you know I'm all for nonres opportunity in Colo. I think it's great that Colo offers such a high % of deer, elk, and antelope tags to nonres! If I was selfish I would be lobbying for 90/10 in Colo similar to what is being done in Wyo and elsewhere! If Wyo converts to 90/10 there is a good chance that Colo may follow suite...and so on! Where does the madness end?
 
The reason the last bill failed was because of the outfitter welfare... Not because there wasn't a lot of resident support for the 90/10 split.. I think there was a lot of residents supported the 90/10 split but not the outfitter welfare.. U can go and donate Wyoga all U want but the days of outfitters getting what they want on every thing is over... When the last bill was up every time I mentioned it to any one about the 90/10 split it was who do I need to call.. Then when I mentioned the wyoga welfare they said hell no no way....
 
BuzzH said:
Why don't you fight for NR sheep, moose, and goat quotas in Colorado that compare to Wyoming?

Why don't you fight for NR's to be allowed to apply for ranching for wildlife tags?

It would be great, just one time, to see you even think about anyone other than yourself. How about it?
Click to expand...

Buzz,

Again, I posted a question about the true revenue loss which will occur with a 90/10 split for antelope. There will also be loss with sheep, moose and goats. Yes, it'll be smaller with those species, but still a loss. Since I've posted it several times, over two threads I'm beginning to think you are ignoring the question.

Here is is below:

Buzz, in the old thread from a few months back I asked about antelope allocation and the loss in profits to the state if a 90/10 split went through. Not sure if you didn’t see the post, or maybe didn’t want to reply, but I’m curious. Did the state crunch the numbers on the revenue loss of antelope? I’d have to pull up the old thread and look at my rough numbers, but I thought it was somewhere around 5 million loss.
 
Also, this 90/10 split will add extra pressure to the general elk units since NR will still receive the same number of elk tags. I'm guessing residents wont appreciate the extra hunters on the general tags.

The more I think about it, the more I feel its a few people pushing their agenda and trying to talk the masses into agreeing, without ever disclosing possible consequences of the change.

Sure, residents have a right to change the rules, but there will be revenue loss and also crowding in the general elk areas. It will also cause significant non resident point creep in all species, especially elk, antelope, sheep and moose.

Bad, bad deal for non residents for sure. Less tags, higher prices, higher point creep. Why cant we just get along?
 
If the state keeps NR full price Elk licenses at the legislated 7,250 quota, and allows nr to draw leftover E/D/A without a cap, there won't be a revenue loss by going to a 90/10 split. NR will draw their 10% LQ Elk licenses then the remainder will be converted to Special Gen licenses and distributed to the remining 1st then 2nd choice apps. Those $1300 licenses make up for the shortage seen with the other LQ licenses.
 
ss13 said:
Buzz,

Again, I posted a question about the true revenue loss which will occur with a 90/10 split for antelope. There will also be loss with sheep, moose and goats. Yes, it'll be smaller with those species, but still a loss. Since I've posted it several times, over two threads I'm beginning to think you are ignoring the question.

Here is is below:

Buzz, in the old thread from a few months back I asked about antelope allocation and the loss in profits to the state if a 90/10 split went through. Not sure if you didn’t see the post, or maybe didn’t want to reply, but I’m curious. Did the state crunch the numbers on the revenue loss of antelope? I’d have to pull up the old thread and look at my rough numbers, but I thought it was somewhere around 5 million loss.
Click to expand...

Pronghorn:

If you look at the number of R's applying and the actual number of tags they draw, to the total number that NR's draw, you'll find that stays pretty consistent over the years. If we go to 90/10, more residents will draw the better areas more often. That leaves behind tags that they normally would have drawn on a second or third choice, which will now go to NR's. All you'll have is a shift in what tags NR's get, not reduce the number of total tags they receive. No way would 90/10 cause a loss of 5 million in NR pronghorn license sales. I believe Residents should receive 90% of the licenses in the areas with better access and better trophy potential.

Elk:

Like its already been stated, as long as the cap stays 7250, there could be an increase in funding going to 90/10 and for sure no decline. Since the special fee general is over-subscribed, every special fee general elk tag will be sold at the higher price. As to the issue of more pressure in general areas, yeah, well, that's not true either. There will be 6% less resident hunters that drew special tags that wont be hunting in the general areas. That's a wash. Plus, there's a lot of general units and the additional handful of general tags going to NR's wont be enough to even notice when spread over the all the general areas.

Deer:

Will only impact the LQ areas...raise Resident deer tag prices a few bucks and you will more than cover any potential loss. Region tags would stay where they are.

M/S/G/B/GB....not worth mentioning on the revenue loss. Frankly, we need to assure that more Residents get the chance to hunt these species here, in particular when most every other state has point systems that new hunters will never catch as a NR. Residents should be receiving at least 90% of these tags, any revenue loss is just too damn bad, we don't need to base every decision on money.

Bottom line, we're looking at very small losses in revenue to the Department, and IMO, we just make that up with an across the board fee increase to RESIDENTS. No free lunch, and if we want 90% of the tags, then we should have to pay the difference, which, if tacked on to every Resident license, wouldn't amount to much of a fee increase at all.

Time for Wyoming to come in line with the other states and give 90% of the opportunity to Residents first.
 
WapitiBob said:
If the state keeps NR full price Elk licenses at the legislated 7,250 quota, and allows nr to draw leftover E/D/A without a cap, there won't be a revenue loss by going to a 90/10 split. NR will draw their 10% LQ Elk licenses then the remainder will be converted to Special Gen licenses and distributed to the remining 1st then 2nd choice apps. Those $1300 licenses make up for the shortage seen with the other LQ licenses.
Click to expand...

Thanks for answering. The bolded above, is that what is currently done or is this also part of the proposal? Is this the solution for making up the money?
 
It's really the small town communities that will be affected the most. The boom and bust cycle of the oil and gas industry in Wyo is hit or miss...especially in bust years. If nonres tags are cut Wyo res won't notice the loss to their economy until it is too late! They better hunker down and prepare for it now because it could carry significant impacts!
 
ss13 said:
Also, this 90/10 split will add extra pressure to the general elk units since NR will still receive the same number of elk tags. I'm guessing residents wont appreciate the extra hunters on the general tags.

The more I think about it, the more I feel its a few people pushing their agenda and trying to talk the masses into agreeing, without ever disclosing possible consequences of the change.

Sure, residents have a right to change the rules, but there will be revenue loss and also crowding in the general elk areas. It will also cause significant non resident point creep in all species, especially elk, antelope, sheep and moose.

Bad, bad deal for non residents for sure. Less tags, higher prices, higher point creep. Why cant we just get along?
Click to expand...

Here's how I would frame a future bill...ask residents if they want 6-20% more tags available to them, with the understanding that they would have to see an across the board increase in every license they buy of a $1 or $2...you think they wont go for it?

I pay that price...all day long.
 
jims said:
It's really the small town communities that will be affected the most. The boom and bust cycle of the oil and gas industry in Wyo is hit or miss...especially in bust years. If nonres tags are cut Wyo res won't notice the loss to their economy until it is too late! They better hunker down and prepare for it now because it could carry significant impacts!
Click to expand...

What a bunch of lies.

Are you trying to tell me that I spend less in Wyoming than you do when I hunt pronghorn in unit 62?

I would argue I spend more....my first tank of gas isn't purchased in Fort Collins, and when I'm done I fill my truck in Wyoming. You refuel your truck when you get home in Fort Collins.

You're a cheapskate and camp the whole time, with the groceries you buy at Costco. I buy my groceries in Wyoming.

Spare me the BS that you even remotely care about the economy of small towns in Wyoming. I live here and support them year round, you don't.
 
That's an argument that gets thrown around every time license fee increases come up, fewer NR applicants and hunters results in less revenue for small towns.
We're the same way, for a long trip sure we might set a camp. Short trip we get a hotel room and buy our food and gas in town. All our camping supplies are bought in Wyoming towns as well.
The tags will get sold and folks will spend locally.
I would gladly pay an extra few dollars for some more high demand tags in the resident draw.
 
So Buzz, let everyone know.....are you for or against On Your Own nonresident hunters? You seem to answer every question on this site but that one! What's your answer?

Buzz, do you think the loss of thousands of nonres that would be cut by 90/10 stay in a hotel, buy fuel, meat processing, taxidermy, gear, restaraunts, outfitters, guides, etc....impact local economies? Ask any of the small town businessmen in Western Colo what they think of nonres license plates! It sounds like you know every step I take while in Wyo and the several scouting trips I take each year?
 
jims said:
Buzz, do you think the loss of thousands of nonres that would be cut by 90/10 stay in a hotel, buy fuel, meat processing, taxidermy, gear, restaraunts, outfitters, guides, etc....impact local economies?
Click to expand...
Which one of these items does the Wyoming resident hunter not also purchase when hunting a unit they don't live in?

You buy all your gear in Wyo not CO? You show up empty handed and then buy your stuff when you get here?
 
Hey if it makes you guys feel any better, my first stop in Wy is the Maverik in Evanston to fill up, the gas is always cheaper.:)
 
Founder said:
I think G and H are probably already at a near 10% NR to 90% Resident.
Click to expand...

YUP..
In 2018:

Sublette Herd (H) Resident 3400; NR 600; 15% NR
Wyoming Range Herd (G); Resident; 4300; NR 400; 8.5% NR

In 2016 before the 16/17 winter...
Sublette Herd (H) Resident 4300; NR 800; 15.6% NR
Wyoming Range Herd (G); Resident; 5900; NR 600; 9.2% NR

And as the deer population increases, I'd suspect licenses will too, both Res and NRes
 
When Colo was considering going away from OTC for nonres elk hunters the Western Colo small town communities went nuts. They knew exactly how much nonres contributed to their economies. That alone was the biggest consideration when the CPW decided not to go all limited for nonres for elk. They looked at res vs nonres spending and nonres spending was a lot higher than what I expected. I wish I could find the links because there were some numbers put in place that ultimately lead to the demise of the OTC deal. It was an eye-opener and made a lot of sense.

If you go to any small town in Wyo during the hunting season the gas stations, convenient stores, hotels, Walmarts, etc are loaded with nonres plates. Wyo res tend to drive right past these same stores where nonres stop and shop. They live in Wyo so would be shopping for food irregardless of whether they were hunting or staying home. A lot of Wyo res tend to hunt close to home with family and friends. Many res hunt and return home each night. Wyo res tend to hunt on weekends and nonres hunt a week or 2 at a time.....spending more $! I know this isn't true for all Wyo residents but I'm guessing it is how it is for the majority. I grew up in Wyoming and that's exactly what I did with friends and family!

Nonres tend to drive a lot more during their stay....driving across the state to hunt plus driving to and from towns to buy gas, gear, stay in hotels, etc. Every stop nonres make they generally buy..buy...buy! You would be surprised at how much a nonres spends on gear and other stuff once they arrive. It may not seem like much but over a week or 2 stay it adds up!
 
jims said:
So Buzz, let everyone know.....are you for or against On Your Own nonresident hunters? You seem to answer every question on this site but that one! What's your answer?

Buzz, do you think the loss of thousands of nonres that would be cut by 90/10 stay in a hotel, buy fuel, meat processing, taxidermy, gear, restaraunts, outfitters, guides, etc....impact local economies? Ask any of the small town businessmen in Western Colo what they think of nonres license plates! It sounds like you know every step I take while in Wyo and the several scouting trips I take each year?
Click to expand...


I think it's clear he is all for it that's why he keeps excitedly posting about it whenever something new happens.

The interesting thing about deeply conservative states like Wyoming is conservatives don't like having to pay more for anything. Any increase in resident fees will kill this movement dead in it's tracks. Buzz might be excited to pay it but he is not the typical Wyoming conservative.

The other issue in Wyoming is all these giant ranches they have owned by rich Texans and other out of staters. Who pays to hunt those ranches? Non residents that's who. That's why the last iteration of this bill was chocked full of ranch tag welfare pork. Until they come up with a way to get the votes of the non-resident billionaires and millionaires that actually control Wyoming policy the movement will have little chance.
 
I’m all for a 90/10 split.....
Let’s also raise resident hunting prices to pay for it!!!!
Then let’s reduce the amount of tags issued
So we can get our herds back up!!!!
And finally to be just like everyone else lets
Put ALL Resident and nonresident tags in a
DRAW!!!!

Let’s get in line with every other state!!!
 
BuzzH said:
Pronghorn:

If you look at the number of R's applying and the actual number of tags they draw, to the total number that NR's draw, you'll find that stays pretty consistent over the years. If we go to 90/10, more residents will draw the better areas more often. That leaves behind tags that they normally would have drawn on a second or third choice, which will now go to NR's. All you'll have is a shift in what tags NR's get, not reduce the number of total tags they receive. No way would 90/10 cause a loss of 5 million in NR pronghorn license sales. I believe Residents should receive 90% of the licenses in the areas with better access and better trophy potential.

Elk:

Like its already been stated, as long as the cap stays 7250, there could be an increase in funding going to 90/10 and for sure no decline. Since the special fee general is over-subscribed, every special fee general elk tag will be sold at the higher price. As to the issue of more pressure in general areas, yeah, well, that's not true either. There will be 6% less resident hunters that drew special tags that wont be hunting in the general areas. That's a wash. Plus, there's a lot of general units and the additional handful of general tags going to NR's wont be enough to even notice when spread over the all the general areas.

Deer:

Will only impact the LQ areas...raise Resident deer tag prices a few bucks and you will more than cover any potential loss. Region tags would stay where they are.

M/S/G/B/GB....not worth mentioning on the revenue loss. Frankly, we need to assure that more Residents get the chance to hunt these species here, in particular when most every other state has point systems that new hunters will never catch as a NR. Residents should be receiving at least 90% of these tags, any revenue loss is just too damn bad, we don't need to base every decision on money.

Bottom line, we're looking at very small losses in revenue to the Department, and IMO, we just make that up with an across the board fee increase to RESIDENTS. No free lunch, and if we want 90% of the tags, then we should have to pay the difference, which, if tacked on to every Resident license, wouldn't amount to much of a fee increase at all.

Time for Wyoming to come in line with the other states and give 90% of the opportunity to Residents first.
Click to expand...

Good detailed explanation, thanks. I'll be curious to see if youre correct about minimal loss when this goes through. I have my doubts, but we’ll see. Still don’t agree with making changes like this and using the reason of, because everyone else is doing it.
 
PleaseDear said:
I can see it going first on Sheep/Moose/Mnt Goats.


Robb
Click to expand...
That’s where it should be done for sure, deer elk and antelope plenty of opportunity for res and nonres IMO. Or go with trumps method build a wall and I’ll gladly eat the money I have in other states points that I started for tags I may never draw and just enjoy wyo opportunities!!
 
Last edited:
Season dates and numbers came out. No big changes for Elk. Non residents took a big hit on general tags in K, L and Q. Antelope tag are cut in many areas too, except the central state.

The reduction in tags, especially the deer and antelope tags, will have a negative impact on point creep for NR. This will be compounded by 90/10.
 
ss13 said:
Good detailed explanation, thanks. I'll be curious to see if youre correct about minimal loss when this goes through. I have my doubts, but we’ll see. Still don’t agree with making changes like this and using the reason of, because everyone else is doing it.
Click to expand...

The reason is to give more priority and better tags/opportunities to Residents...not "because everyone else is doing it".
 
ss13 said:
The reduction in tags, especially the deer and antelope tags, will have a negative impact on point creep for NR. This will be compounded by 90/10.
Click to expand...

General Nonresident deer tags would not be affected by the 90/10 unless the State goes to a draw for those resident general areas too. And if deer populations go up, so would tags most likely. Antelope...yup...going to reduce 20-30 tags per area for those areas west of the continental divide that I looked at which will help us residents...I haven't drawn a buck tag in 8 years. Nonresident general deer quotas below for 2020.

Section 6. Nonresident Region General Deer License Quotas.

(b) Quotas of nonresident region General deer licenses are established for the regions and shall not exceed the numbers specified in this section.

Region Quotas
A 4000
B 1500
C 2500
D 400
F 550
G 400
H 600
J 900
K 300
L 250
M 800
Q 125
R 600
T 400
W 900
X 300
Y 1800
 
BuzzH said:
The reason is to give more priority and better tags/opportunities to Residents...not "because everyone else is doing it".
Click to expand...

Didn't you yourself say something to the effect of, its time to get in line other western states? Its the standard argument most use for the justification.
 
rocky2track said:
General Nonresident deer tags would not be affected by the 90/10 unless the State goes to a draw for those resident general areas too. And if deer populations go up, so would tags most likely. Antelope...yup...going to reduce 20-30 tags per area for those areas west of the continental divide that I looked at which will help us residents...I haven't drawn a buck tag in 8 years. Nonresident general deer quotas below for 2020.

Section 6. Nonresident Region General Deer License Quotas.

(b) Quotas of nonresident region General deer licenses are established for the regions and shall not exceed the numbers specified in this section.

Region Quotas
A 4000
B 1500
C 2500
D 400
F 550
G 400
H 600
J 900
K 300
L 250
M 800
Q 125
R 600
T 400
W 900
X 300
Y 1800
Click to expand...

I read through the 2020 quotas too. There is a drop in non resident tags for K, L and Q. Its a significant drop too! Lets be honest, when tags are taken away from the general non resident pool they never come back regardless of if a herd rebound takes place. F it hurting, so that's understandable, but G and H, nope no reason for it. Not when 4000+ residents are blasting away too. The tag cuts there were to limit non resident number, plain and simple.

I can understand the frustration of not drawing a goat tag in 8 years. I don't like how the state conducts the resident random draw, but I literally have no dog in that fight. I like what New Mexico does their draw with looking at 3 of your choices before moving to the next person. If that was the case, in Wy residents would be guaranteed to draw a tag every year as long as their 2nd and 3rd choices were in easier to draw units.
 
BuzzH said:
The reason is to give more priority and better tags/opportunities to Residents...not "because everyone else is doing it".
Click to expand...

Really, here is what you said. "Time for Wyoming to come in line with the other states and give 90% of the opportunity to Residents first. "

I could find many more quotes on all the other thread about this topic.

If that's how you feel, its fine. But don't pretend you and others haven't used that reason as a justification.
 
Don't agree. We want Wyoming to manage for the benefit of the residents, don't care what other states are doing until it comes to pricing. Charge NRs a premium to hunt our most sought after game just as other states do.
 
BuzzH said:
Here's how I would frame a future bill...ask residents if they want 6-20% more tags available to them, with the understanding that they would have to see an across the board increase in every license they buy of a $1 or $2...you think they wont go for it?

I pay that price...all day long.
Click to expand...

That would work, no argument from me. But take it one step further, if an increase is needed to fund the program or wildlife improvement within the state, how about an even percentage increase for both resident and non residents. Don't make us foot the bill.

If a resident pays $50 for a tag and non resident pays $600, the next increase should be of equal percentage. So, if the WY decides they need a 20% increase residents should also pay into the increase, not just us. Whats fair is fair, $60 and $720.
 
I think small businesses in Wyoming really appreciate the income from non-resident hunters, but compared to general tourist funds late spring through summer, it's probably a drop in the bucket. The price of fuel during the tourist season probably has a far greater impact on those businesses than a change in the number of hunters would.
 
wytex said:
Don't agree. We want Wyoming to manage for the benefit of the residents, don't care what other states are doing until it comes to pricing. Charge NRs a premium to hunt our most sought after game just as other states do.
Click to expand...

I hear you, just pointing out a common argument I keep hearing. I think that argument is ignorant and short sighted. Much more thought should be put into any decision than, "because they are doing it." Quite frankly, its an unintelligent and childish statement.

If the decision is made for resident benefits, wildlife, or for another justifiable reason that fine. But because someone else does it, nope. Just doesn't sit well.

As far as a premium for tags go, its out of control across the west, not just one state. I can appreciate how difficult it must be balancing how to support the needs of wildlife and the wants of the residents, while managing a budget. Not a job I'd want, because its impossible to make everyone happy.

This topic is bigger than 90/10. There is a cost benefit analysis that should be looked at, in addition to looking for possible unintended consequences that may develop.
 
ss13 said:
If the decision is made for resident benefits, wildlife, or for another justifiable reason that fine. But because someone else does it, nope. Just doesn't sit well.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you are so hung up on this. The bottom line is 90/10 is for the benefit of residents, no matter what anyone says as a reason to support a change.
 
While we are discussing the "generosity" or lack thereof of Colorado and Wyoming towards nonresidents I thought I would mention a little known fact. Colorado has no nonresident quota for pronghorn. That's right, it's based solely on preference points. Nonresidents can draw all of the tags in a hunt code if they have more points. How's that for generous?

I've attached an example. For Unit 10 Rifle in 2019 it took a minimum of 22 preference points to be assured of drawing a tag. A very high demand hunt we would all agree. Nonresidents drew three out of the five tags or 60%.

For the record I think all states should give 20% of the draw tags to nonresidents for all species and all hunts including Ranching for Wildlife, Sheep, Goat, Moose etc. I also think there should be no outfitter set asides or other outfitter welfare.

Colorado has been too stingy to nonresidents with Ranching for Wildlife and sheep goat and moose. But they are Waaaaay too generous with pronghorn tags!

2019 CO Pronghorn Draw Unit 10 Rifle.jpeg
 
Deerlove said:
This guy is a clown,
Click to expand...
Why? And you aren't?

Is it because you don't agree with his ethics?
Is it because he believes in hunting for sustenance?
Is it because you don't agree with his opinion on set-aside Commissioner and Governor tags?
Maybe you disagree with his opposition to 56 antelope licenses given every year to a "special" group of past shooters of the One Shot antelope hunt.

I admire the fact he truly gets involved and doesn't just complain on social media or hunting forums.

I guess if people don't agree with you they are "clowns"?
 
As a nr paying my fair share in federal taxes, 90/10 would work for me. I think, that ever one pays 500 per deer tag 1000 per elk tag residents & nr. That makes it fair, then everyone then would be happy. Small business in town would be happy, fish and game happy, its a win win for ever one
 
Wyoming will lose out on app fees for MSG also.

I did a little looking at last years numbers. I'm going to assume if it ends up 90/10 it will be minimum 90%.

Here's a little math I did. There were 44 tags allocated to non res in 2019. Of those only 4 were random tags for non res. If it go's 90/10 only unit 3 and 5 might have a random tag. Each issued 32 tags. 90% of 32 is 28.8. So I will give one of those units the benefit of the doubt and say they will issue 4 tags to non res and 28 to res.

Non res got 25% of tags and that was 44 tags. If it go's to 90/10 that is a 60% loss for non res sheep tags. 40% of 44 is 17.6. I'll round up and say non res get a total of 18 sheep tags. 17 to max points and 1 random.

For non res there are 1570 applicants that have 17 or more points. If tag allocations stayed the same it would take 92 years to get through the 17 point holders.

There are 9124 non res with 16 points or less. Competing for 1 tag a year with the other 17+ point holders. @$227.13 a year non refundable. So unless you are pretty well off or completely failed at math applicants will drop out.

Lets say 2/3 of applicants with 16 or less points drop out. 6083 applicants X $165 = a loss of $1,003,695 in just app and point fees.

Moose would be cut 50% if it went 90/10. So non res would get around 28 tags a year. There are about the same number of moose apps and its close to the same price non refundable as sheep. Again unless people can't do math moose apps will take a hit also. Say another $800k loss in point and app fees.

Now the other part I don't think really gets looked at is the loss of donations etc. When I donate to wildlife orgs I donate to the ones I believe do a good job in areas I am interested in. Since I will never be able to hunt bighorn sheep in Wyoming I don't donate to the Wyoming wild sheep foundation. But since there is a chance of hunting sheep in Idaho I do donate to the Idaho wild sheep.

All tags are getting harder and harder to draw in the west. Also supposedly hunter recruitment is down US wide. How long before people back east that see zero benefit quit donating to all the wildlife orgs? Especially the oil type orgs that realistically will never benefit 98% of the people that donate to them?

If I wasn't a hunter I would not be donating as much to wildlife since I would be donating more towards other interests. I don't donate anything to marine conservation orgs. But if I was into diving instead of hunting I bet that is where my money would go.

I expect it to go 90/10 someday. Anyway just some rambling thoughts since I had time.
 
just going to throw out an opinion I know will ruffle some feathers...but for sheep, mtn goat, and moose, all tags in all western states should only be allocated to residents. Yes I’m a non resident that applies for these in some states, and this would screw me over. But I think it’s only fair considering how limited the resource is for these specific animals, and how great the demand is.

As far as other big game species...let each state decide what’s best for them based on combination of resident sentiment, economics, etc.

Overall I think there are bigger issues than arguing or fighting over tag allocation to residents/non residents...
 
jm77 said:
Why? And you aren't?

Is it because you don't agree with his ethics?
Is it because he believes in hunting for sustenance?
Is it because you don't agree with his opinion on set-aside Commissioner and Governor tags?
Maybe you disagree with his opposition to 56 antelope licenses given every year to a "special" group of past shooters of the One Shot antelope hunt.

I admire the fact he truly gets involved and doesn't just complain on social media or hunting forums.

I guess if people don't agree with you they are "clowns"?
Click to expand...
He's anti NR and pro guide, don't tell me how far to shoot while supporting guides and their LONG range shooting classes and not even hunting with the clients own rife. Who doesn't hunt for sustenance? Guides clients.
 
Last edited:
ss13 said:
I hear you, just pointing out a common argument I keep hearing. I think that argument is ignorant and short sighted. Much more thought should be put into any decision than, "because they are doing it." Quite frankly, its an unintelligent and childish statement.

If the decision is made for resident benefits, wildlife, or for another justifiable reason that fine. But because someone else does it, nope. Just doesn't sit well.

As far as a premium for tags go, its out of control across the west, not just one state. I can appreciate how difficult it must be balancing how to support the needs of wildlife and the wants of the residents, while managing a budget. Not a job I'd want, because its impossible to make everyone happy.

This topic is bigger than 90/10. There is a cost benefit analysis that should be looked at, in addition to looking for possible unintended consequences that may develop.
Click to expand...

Where have to heard or read from WG&F they base their management on what other states do?
 
wytex said:
Where have to heard or read from WG&F they base their management on what other states do?
Click to expand...

Nope not saying the state, but rather everyday people on these hunting forums. I see it all over. You name the state, there are residents saying, if they do it, why not us too.

Words are typed or said without putting thought into the bigger picture. Its not just in the hunting world either. People say or do things with short sighted vision and the outcome is not what was expected. I've done it many times too.

I guess whats frustrating is that threads like these always end up being a pissing match and animosity is created. No different than political conversation between parties. What makes it worse is that when communication is done by keyboard its nearly impossible to pick up on tone and intent. So, a comment which may be innocent can be taken as aggressive or degrading.
 
BuzzH said:
Pronghorn:

If you look at the number of R's applying and the actual number of tags they draw, to the total number that NR's draw, you'll find that stays pretty consistent over the years. If we go to 90/10, more residents will draw the better areas more often. That leaves behind tags that they normally would have drawn on a second or third choice, which will now go to NR's. All you'll have is a shift in what tags NR's get, not reduce the number of total tags they receive. No way would 90/10 cause a loss of 5 million in NR pronghorn license sales. I believe Residents should receive 90% of the licenses in the areas with better access and better trophy potential.

Elk:

Like its already been stated, as long as the cap stays 7250, there could be an increase in funding going to 90/10 and for sure no decline. Since the special fee general is over-subscribed, every special fee general elk tag will be sold at the higher price. As to the issue of more pressure in general areas, yeah, well, that's not true either. There will be 6% less resident hunters that drew special tags that wont be hunting in the general areas. That's a wash. Plus, there's a lot of general units and the additional handful of general tags going to NR's wont be enough to even notice when spread over the all the general areas.

Deer:

Will only impact the LQ areas...raise Resident deer tag prices a few bucks and you will more than cover any potential loss. Region tags would stay where they are.

M/S/G/B/GB....not worth mentioning on the revenue loss. Frankly, we need to assure that more Residents get the chance to hunt these species here, in particular when most every other state has point systems that new hunters will never catch as a NR. Residents should be receiving at least 90% of these tags, any revenue loss is just too damn bad, we don't need to base every decision on money.

Bottom line, we're looking at very small losses in revenue to the Department, and IMO, we just make that up with an across the board fee increase to RESIDENTS. No free lunch, and if we want 90% of the tags, then we should have to pay the difference, which, if tacked on to every Resident license, wouldn't amount to much of a fee increase at all.

Time for Wyoming to come in line with the other states and give 90% of the opportunity to Residents first.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the long winded response.

I agree with the assessment on elk after reading your response. In fact you brought up a great point about crowding that I didn't think of. I generally agree with the minimal loss of funding for the sheep and moose, specifically talking about tag sales. But, I do think you are under estimating the loss in point revenue. As another person said, many people will drop out of that draw. With so few tags it would no longer be worth it for anyone under 17 points to apply.

Overall, I realize where your stance comes from. To be completely honest, I don't know how my view of the situation would be if I was a resident. I do think you are being too overly optimistic with your stance on there not being a revenue loss with the proposal.
 
Buzz and his minions post this stuff every year and amazingly, every year it is the same old thread. Wyoming is gracious in their non resident allotment of tags and I thank them for that. If Wyoming chooses to go 90/10, frankly there isn't much a NR can do. You will have to decide to play the game or not. Its that simple. If you don't think that Buzz doesn't get a rise out of pushing your buttons you are not paying attention to all of his posts. Its a yearly event for him, and it works every time.

Rich
 
We know Wyoming will set the quotas how they see fit. Changing the quotas will negatively affect NRs far more than it benefits residents when you do the math. As we discuss this, I've got a chunk of money in Wyoming for less than stellar random odds of drawing a LE elk tag. :)

Texas doesn't have quotas on their draws, but our system is different.

I remember how New Mexico residents talked about never being drawn before 2012 and blamed NRs and landowner tags for taking all the licenses. NM changed up quotas in 2012. NM residents still talk about never being draw and blame NRs and landowner tags.
 
As a NR, that has been building points for 8 years, I like it the way it is and have been making my long terms plans around it. Now that I am finally in the striking distance to get an elk tag, let me draw mine this year and you resident guys can have it. Just like you have the all the general units OTC. This thread is so boring I can barely follow it.
 
jm77 said:
Why? And you aren't?

Is it because you don't agree with his ethics?
Is it because he believes in hunting for sustenance?
Is it because you don't agree with his opinion on set-aside Commissioner and Governor tags?
Maybe you disagree with his opposition to 56 antelope licenses given every year to a "special" group of past shooters of the One Shot antelope hunt.

I admire the fact he truly gets involved and doesn't just complain on social media or hunting forums.

I guess if people don't agree with you they are "clowns"?
Click to expand...
Because he seems to have an extreme point of view against NR in WY. His opinions and reasoning defies any sensibility of logic. I won’t get into his ethics. This was the guy that supported the original bill that was sponsored by another extreme politician which was down 1-28. The bill went beyond any logical thought. It was going to decrease NR allocations to 10% while also setting aside 30% for an outfitter pool. All the while, increasing the price very substantially. Let’s not forget we just increased the elk license fee last yr I think over 25% or close. He also is advocating some idiotic view of creating PP for leftover license!!! The damn license were leftover period!!! He wants to advocate having PP for license his very own residents didn’t want in the first place! At the end of day, the leftover licenses that he seems to think residents should have preference over are leftover by this very group! It makes no sense. And this whole 20% thing on the trophy species allocation I may get a bit. But no NR that isn’t significantly invested in points there is applying for tags or points. So it isn’t attracting new clients. It is too cost inhibited to apply for trophy species there as a NR for the maybe chance of couple tags in random part. And the $4500 buffalo tag is a wonderful deal!
 
BeastN said:
As a NR, that has been building points for 8 years, I like it the way it is and have been making my long terms plans around it. Now that I am finally in the striking distance to get an elk tag, let me draw mine this year and you resident guys can have it. Just like you have the all the general units OTC. This thread is so boring I can barely follow it.
Click to expand...

This is a great example of a bigger issue at hand. If States continue to restrict, talk down to and throw non residents to the side, we will no longer support those States on other issues. I don't know this guy, but do you really think there's a chance that he'll stand up and fight for Wy when it pertains to Grizzly's, wolves, land sales, restricted access? Nope, not a chance. As less and less tags get issued to non resident, less and less non residents take notice of western issues.

Do you really think hunters pay much attention to or care about issues in states that don't provide them opportunity? Nope. Hunters are a small group already and we continue to tear our own group apart. Why should guys from the east contribute to RMEF, SCI, NWTF or the many other organizations that contribute to western hunting if there is no return, or we are treated as second class? Why should we care about your local predator issues, winter range, state land, blm, or national parks?
 
The only point I'll address of yours is the why contribute to RMEF, SCI or NWTF?
Elk aren't only in western states now, wonder who helped get those animals transplanted ? Turkey, pretty sure they are all over the country, SCI also pretty sure they are not only western state org.
 
wytex said:
The only point I'll address of yours is the why contribute to RMEF, SCI or NWTF?
Elk aren't only in western states now, wonder who helped get those animals transplanted ? Turkey, pretty sure they are all over the country, SCI also pretty sure they are not only western state org.
Click to expand...

Just came up with a few off the top of my head. Don’t get caught up on the names. Fill in the blank with whichever you choose. My point is the same no matter the organization you choose.
 
Thomas11 said:
Because he seems to have an extreme point of view against NR in WY. His opinions and reasoning defies any sensibility of logic. I won’t get into his ethics. This was the guy that supported the original bill that was sponsored by another extreme politician which was down 1-28. The bill went beyond any logical thought. It was going to decrease NR allocations to 10% while also setting aside 30% for an outfitter pool. All the while, increasing the price very substantially. Let’s not forget we just increased the elk license fee last yr I think over 25% or close. He also is advocating some idiotic view of creating PP for leftover license!!! The damn license were leftover period!!! He wants to advocate having PP for license his very own residents didn’t want in the first place! At the end of day, the leftover licenses that he seems to think residents should have preference over are leftover by this very group! It makes no sense. And this whole 20% thing on the trophy species allocation I may get a bit. But no NR that isn’t significantly invested in points there is applying for tags or points. So it isn’t attracting new clients. It is too cost inhibited to apply for trophy species there as a NR for the maybe chance of couple tags in random part. And the $4500 buffalo tag is a wonderful deal!
Click to expand...
Just as I thought: he has his opinions and you have yours. Clowns...
 
ss13 I pay attention when it comes to wildlife because that’s my passion. Do I like grizzly bears and wolves, do I think they should be managed by the state instead of federal government of course I do. Will I take the time to write the legislators in Wyoming or the game and fish about the quota, I just don’t know, because I only have so much time in the day and quite frankly Wyoming is three states east of me. I do apply in eight Western states so I’m gonna go with the numbers and I’ll continue to spend my time making money so that I am sure that I have hunting opportunities in my future and for my kids. If one of you non-residents wants to make it’s easy for us non-residents to rally against not changing the quota now that would be productive I’m all ears.
 
ss13 said:
This is a great example of a bigger issue at hand. If States continue to restrict, talk down to and throw non residents to the side, we will no longer support those States on other issues. I don't know this guy, but do you really think there's a chance that he'll stand up and fight for Wy when it pertains to Grizzly's, wolves, land sales, restricted access? Nope, not a chance. As less and less tags get issued to non resident, less and less non residents take notice of western issues.

Do you really think hunters pay much attention to or care about issues in states that don't provide them opportunity? Nope. Hunters are a small group already and we continue to tear our own group apart. Why should guys from the east contribute to RMEF, SCI, NWTF or the many other organizations that contribute to western hunting if there is no return, or we are treated as second class? Why should we care about your local predator issues, winter range, state land, blm, or national parks?
Click to expand...

If you honestly think more than a small, small handful of NR's are helping now with land access in Wyoming, attending/commenting on issues, or driving here to do hands on projects...you're delusional. You don't support the state now, I've read the comments that are received on Wyoming issues, 95%+ are from Wyoming residents.

Oh, hell yes, NR's are more than willing to tell WY Residents how we need to give them more, cry about NR license fees, and anything that gores their ox. They are also more than happy to come here to shoot our wildlife.

So, really, knowing that, I'm way more inclined to worry about Resident hunters...just the way it is.
 
ss13 said:
Just came up with a few off the top of my head. Don’t get caught up on the names. Fill in the blank with whichever you choose. My point is the same no matter the organization you choose.
Click to expand...

If the only reason you choose to support wildlife and public lands comes down to there having to be something in it for YOU personally...then you never were an advocate to start with. You're just another guy on the take.

I've given a lot of my time, talent, and treasure to help support things that I know damn well I'll never personally benefit from. I like the idea of knowing that public lands exist...and I don't have to physically be present on them to understand the value they have. Not only to the public living now, but for those that will come after me.

I'm very grateful and humbled by those that came before me, that also spent their time, talent, and treasure for my sake. So that I would have a place to recreate, camp, hunt, fish, hike, etc. etc.

The least I can do is to not be running around threatening to quit supporting those things because there isn't anything in it for me personally.

What a joke...
 
BuzzH said:
If you honestly think more than a small, small handful of NR's are helping now with land access in Wyoming, attending/commenting on issues, or driving here to do hands on projects...you're delusional. You don't support the state now, I've read the comments that are received on Wyoming issues, 95%+ are from Wyoming residents.

Oh, hell yes, NR's are more than willing to tell WY Residents how we need to give them more, cry about NR license fees, and anything that gores their ox. They are also more than happy to come here to shoot our wildlife.

So, really, knowing that, I'm way more inclined to worry about Resident hunters...just the way it is.
Click to expand...

FELLAS- settle down let me tell you something. It’s all about capitalism economics. Whatever provides the greatest revenue to the state is what they’re going to go with. Don’t you see the mighty dollar trumps all. If you don’t believe me you don’t know how government works. Supply and demand my friends.
 
BuzzH said:
If you honestly think more than a small, small handful of NR's are helping now with land access in Wyoming, attending/commenting on issues, or driving here to do hands on projects...you're delusional. You don't support the state now, I've read the comments that are received on Wyoming issues, 95%+ are from Wyoming residents.

Oh, hell yes, NR's are more than willing to tell WY Residents how we need to give them more, cry about NR license fees, and anything that gores their ox. They are also more than happy to come here to shoot our wildlife.

So, really, knowing that, I'm way more inclined to worry about Resident hunters...just the way it is.
Click to expand...

I never provided a number for percentage, but if my math is correct, 5%of non residents is better than 2%, which is better than 0%.
 
So Buzz, I know you like to pat yourself on the back and you do a lot in support of preserving Wyo's hunting heritage....but....truly, do you support "On Your Own" nonresident hunters? Are you in favor of 90/10 or is your interest in handing out a larger chunk of tags to Wyo residents?
 
Guess I hit a nerve, wow. You’re an intelligent guy, you know how this country works. If people aren’t included, they typically don’t pay much attention. Right or wrong, it’s the truth. More non resident tags mean more support from the East. We do pay attention.

I don’t discount your work, you do a great job I supporting wildlife. It’s my opinion that you don’t do a good job of uniting hunters though. Topics like this are tearing our hunting community apart.

What the heck was the purpose of this thread anyways?
 
ss13 said:
Guess I hit a nerve, wow. You’re an intelligent guy, you know how this country works. If people aren’t included, they typically don’t pay much attention. Right or wrong, it’s the truth. More non resident tags mean more support from the East. We do pay attention.

I don’t discount your work, you do a great job I supporting wildlife. It’s my opinion that you don’t do a good job of uniting hunters though. Topics like this are tearing our hunting community apart.
Click to expand...
Why should there be a uniting of hunters? You’re not going to get me on the side of a utard or Texas’s that baits. why should the residents of Wyoming give two flying focks what non residents think what’s fair for tag allocation?
 
Slightlysober said:
Why should there be a uniting of hunters? You’re not going to get me on the side of a utard or Texas’s that baits. why should the residents of Wyoming give two flying focks what non residents think what’s fair for tag allocation?
Click to expand...

Because unity is typically how a group of people guarantees their future existence. Without it our sport and lifestyle is vulnerable and could die.

What percentage of Americans hunt?
 
Slightlysober said:
Why should there be a uniting of hunters? You’re not going to get me on the side of a utard or Texas’s that baits. why should the residents of Wyoming give two flying focks what non residents think what’s fair for tag allocation?
Click to expand...
Because we are all NR in 49 other states. We are much more successful united as hunters. We do have a common interest at the end of the day! I think most NR don’t mind paying their fair share etc we just don’t want to feel hosed and completely taken advantage of. The first draft of the bill was completely hosing NR in every regard. Like has been said, they increased the tag fee last I think over 25%. And this bill was gonna add significantly to that and take away 6% of elk limited license and take 30% of the remaining and give to outfitters. That in most peeps opinion is unreasonable. They already made us apply in Jan and wait till May. We won’t even get started on that stupid decision . Beyond logic at best to make us apply in January. Total outfitter welfare
 
ss13 said:
Guess I hit a nerve, wow. You’re an intelligent guy, you know how this country works. If people aren’t included, they typically don’t pay much attention. Right or wrong, it’s the truth. More non resident tags mean more support from the East. We do pay attention.

I don’t discount your work, you do a great job I supporting wildlife. It’s my opinion that you don’t do a good job of uniting hunters though. Topics like this are tearing our hunting community apart.

What the heck was the purpose of this thread anyways?
Click to expand...

Still waiting on that support...in the mean time, we may as well have the tags for those doing 95% of the heavy lifting (residents).
 
Last edited:
Thomas11 said:
Because we are all NR in 49 other states. We are much more successful united as hunters. We do have a common interest at the end of the day! I think most NR don’t mind paying their fair share etc we just don’t want to feel hosed and completely taken advantage of. The first draft of the bill was completely hosing NR in every regard. Like has been said, they increased the tag fee last I think over 25%. And this bill was gonna add significantly to that and take away 6% of elk limited license and take 30% of the remaining and give to outfitters. That in most peeps opinion is unreasonable. They already made us apply in Jan and wait till May. We won’t even get started on that stupid decision . Beyond logic at best to make us apply in January. Total outfitter welfare
Click to expand...

Right, and I accept what Residents of those states give me and thank them for anything they're willing to share.

What I don't do is *****, whine and complain what percentage they give me tag wise, or even if they give me anything at all. I accept that they should, rightfully do what's best for their Residents. If giving priority to their Residents means less for me as a NR, well, that's just the way it is.

I think the problem is that Wyoming has been wayyyy too generous for wayyyyy too long to NR's and graciousness is being confused with a NR entitlement.

NR's of Wyoming hunt here at the pleasure of Residents, and when we decide to cut NR allocations to 10%, that's the way it goes.

Be thankful we don't cut it to 5%.
 

Similar threads

Horniac
DRAFT MOOSE REGS/QUOTAS
Replies
71
Views
1k
BuzzH
BuzzH
elks96
The Truth About the one Shot….
Replies
4
Views
377
elks96
elks96
Horniac
DRAFT SHEEP & MTN GOAT REGS/QUOTAS
Replies
18
Views
493
LIK2HNT
LIK2HNT

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

fullsizeoutput_bc.jpeg
121692631_3445123255536187_8515886080039628942_n.jpg
A15D39F5-EE8D-43BC-BE1B-D7A60D803E0D.jpeg
bryce deer.jpg
4F045CE9-03BB-493B-998C-57E041BAFD96.jpeg
DF945796-1C2F-4F9E-98C7-9F6F0E438FB9.jpeg
IMG_20200420_105111.jpg
20221029_170443.jpg
20171016_125648.jpg
Beautiful Stick-n-String Score!
IMG_6394 (1).JPG
IMG_0772.jpg
Back
Top Bottom