Anybody Hear About This Outfitter Proposal?

T

TOPGUN

Long Time Member
Messages
10,637
I just read this on another website and thought I'd throw it out here for comments and discussion:

The Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association has three ideas that together could raise $2.5 million each year for the department.

The possible savings are accurate, said Brian Nesvik, chief of the wildlife division for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

None of the ideas would change how Game and Fish manages wildlife. The changes are a public policy decision, left to the public, and ultimately either the Game and Fish Commission or the state Legislature, to decide, he said.
?Change the ratio of high- and low-priced nonresident elk, deer and antelope tags: Right now, 60 percent of the tags reserved for nonresidents are issued at a low price and 40 percent at a higher price. For example, 60 percent of the antelope tags are $286 and 40 percent of the special- or higher-priced tags are $526, said Jim Allen, board member and past president of the outfitters and guides association. He would like to reverse the numbers, putting 60 percent aside at the higher rate and 40 percent at the lower.

This would require a change in state statute by the Legislature.
?Increase the percentage of tags given to nonresidents: Right now, 84 percent of the limited-quota elk licenses are reserved for residents. Sixteen percent are reserved for nonresidents. Allen proposes changing the ratio to 80 percent for residents and 20 percent for nonresidents.

Deer and antelope tags are given at an 80 and 20 percent ratio.

This change would need to go through a public comment period and be approved by the commission.
?Add 1,000 nonresident elk tags: Allen believes Wyoming could give 1,000 more elk tags -- either bull or cow/calf -- to nonresidents and not impact hunting for residents.

Nonresident hunters are allowed 7,250 elk tags each year, a number that was set in the 1980s.

Since then, he cites an increase in elk numbers and a decrease in resident hunters.

In 1980, Wyoming residents bought 56,447 elk licenses. In 2012, residents bought 46,148. The number of elk has increased from 80,000 in the late 1980s to 120,000 now, said Nesvik.

This change would also require a public comment period and approval of the commission.
 
the outfitter wants to make more money.

At this point im neutral. Not sure what would be the best or worst for the game and fish. I have tried to think of something and I have had no luck
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-13 AT 03:54PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-13 AT 03:47?PM (MST)

The part about changing the NR high fee/lower fee percentage sounds like another plan to "stick it" to the NR hunter. The part about giving the NR more tags is a good thing. And yes the outfitters would stand to make more as stated above. At some point the residents of the western states are gonna have to pony up some extra dough as well.
 
I can say right now as a resident hunter in Wyoming there would be a big blow out about the Limited Quota percentage change for elk and the additional 1000 NR elk tags. Most residents think Wyoming is too generous in our percentage split to non-residents already.

As a resident I am willing to pay more for hunting licenses in Wyoming.
 
If any of your are RMEF members, read the article by BigFin (Randy Newberg) in the Bugle magazine that just came out this week regarding fees and supporting our various F&G agencies.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-13 AT 09:32PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-13 AT 09:31?PM (MST)

Of course outfitters are OK with this proposal. They dont put a single cent into the game and fish budget, have ZERO flesh in the game, and get more clients to boot.

Any resident that supports this is a fool..period.

As per usual the outfitters stand back and let everyone else pay the freight while they collect the profits from the public resources.

This chit never ends with the outfitters, they're simply a parasite on Wyomings Wildlife Resources. It would be one thing if they were ponying up the money, but they arent. They're expecting their NR clients to pay higher tag fees, and expecting resident hunters to give up more wildlife resources and opportunity.

I'm also sure that WYSFW will be supporting this pile o' chit...again, no flesh in the game for them either.

Its no wonder that WYOGA and WYSFW are in bed together...two peas in a pod.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-13
>AT 09:32?PM (MST)
>
>LAST EDITED ON Jun-29-13
>AT 09:31?PM (MST)
>
>Of course outfitters are OK with
>this proposal. They dont put
>a single cent into the
>game and fish budget, have
>ZERO flesh in the game,
>and get more clients to
>boot.
>
>Any resident that supports this is
>a fool..period.
>
>As per usual the outfitters stand
>back and let everyone else
>pay the freight while they
>collect the profits from the
>public resources.
>
>This chit never ends with the
>outfitters, they're simply a parasite
>on Wyomings Wildlife Resources. It
>would be one thing if
>they were ponying up the
>money, but they arent. They're
>expecting their NR clients to
>pay higher tag fees, and
>expecting resident hunters to give
>up more wildlife resources and
>opportunity.
>
>I'm also sure that WYSFW will
>be supporting this pile o'
>chit...again, no flesh in the
>game for them either.
>
>Its no wonder that WYOGA and
>WYSFW are in bed together...two
>peas in a pod.

Buzz, it is no coincidence that Jim Allen is the WYOGA board member from Lander, the same place Mr Wharff introduced his "save the G&F" plan of 1000 more NR elk licenses for a 'start'. I can't believe the G&F would be foolish enough to try this. They have enough on their plate right now then to get every resident elk hunter on their case.

It's time that all of Wyoming realize the coonection between WYOGA and WYSFW.
 
I wonder what kind of spin Mr Smokestick will try to put on this one after all the other BS he's been caught at, the last being taking a 30% cut to sell a Bison tag!!! If most "average Joes" can't see by now why I didn't trust anything that came out of the WYSFW Executive Director's mouth the last couple years, maybe now they will wake up and smell the coffee before it's too late! Wake up Wyoming!!!
 
I don't support this proposal at all. The Game & Fish would be crazy to push this. Although I seldom agree with BuzzH, I do agree that outfitters are parasites on our wildlife resources. This is especially true in Park County, Wyoming. There are a couple outfitters I respect because they conserve the resource, but most are just greedy opportunists that hammer the resource year after year without concern for the future.
 
As a resident, I agree this proposal is a bunch of crap and only benefits outfitters. I can't draw a limited quota elk tag to save my life as it is!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-13 AT 09:21AM (MST)[p]I am not sure if I support it at all. But it is an idea to prolong the inevitable higher resident prices. One thing I think it is worth pointing out; The Game and Fish got their budgets off balance, it is their job to manage the resource not the outfitters. I agree some outfitters may not care about the resource, most of them care more then the G&F appears too. If the outfitters don't make a profit and have a balanced budget, they go out of business. It is somehow not the case with G&F, Forest Circus and the federal government. They ALL just blame someone else...

It's my opinion the Outfitters, Residents and DIY Non Residents are ALL hammering the resource together and G&F does nothing because G&F can't afford to cut their tag sales any more all for$$$$$$$ That concerns me more than anything.... The Wyoming Game and Fish is the only one who is getting paid to manage the resource, maybe the Wyoming Game and Fish should be doing their job!!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-13 AT 10:54AM (MST)[p]But it is an idea to prolong the inevitable higher resident prices.

Why are you against Residents paying more for their licenses? I'm not. I think Residents have become cheap crybabies who have come to expect NR's to pay 80% of the bills. Well past time for the residents to step up.

[b[]One thing I think it is worth pointing out; The Game and Fish got their budgets off balance, it is their job to manage the resource[/b]

The WYG&F is responsible for management, you're right about that. Management costs money, and lots of it. Everything from fisheries, hatcheries, bird hunting, big-game, Non-game, studies, research, etc. etc. etc. they're responsible for all of it. Go to any open house meeting of the WYG&F and listen to the demands that the hunting/fishing public puts on the WYG&F. Those demands come with a price tag, and frankly, the WYG&F has done an incredible job considering how cheap the Reident tag fees are. There is no way that the WYG&F can continue to provide the level of service, to such a broad range of user demands, with less money. Cant do it...period. Its come to either cut programs or find additional revenue. Its 3rd grade math.




I agree some outfitters may not care about the resource, most of them care more then the G&F appears too.

Load of chit. Show me ONE study, one research program, etc. that outfitters have funded. I'll save you the time, there isnt a single ONE.

If the outfitters don't make a profit and have a balanced budget, they go out of business. It is somehow not the case with G&F, Forest Circus and the federal government. They ALL just blame someone else...

First off, the G&F, Forest Circus, and federal government were never intended to be profit driven entities. Nor should they be, for all kinds of very good reasons. Also, if outfitters were required to fund management, they'd have a tough time existing at all. They're welfare cases, plain and simple. They rely on the publics resources (that they dont pay ONE CENT to manage) for their very existence...and thats a fact.

It's my opinion the Outfitters, Residents and DIY Non Residents are ALL hammering the resource together and G&F does nothing because G&F can't afford to cut their tag sales any more all for$$$$$$$

Another load of bullchit. Resident and DIY Non-Residents,as well as outfitted R's and NR's, pay ALL the freight for management. Outfitters and guides pay nothing for management. Also, you're full of chit about cutting tags. Take a look at the regulations sometime...compare last year to this year. Antelope tags were slashed all over Wyoming. Deer tags have been slashed. Elk tags in some areas were cut. Further, the WYG&F could cut tags even further if Residents actually paid more than a pitance for their tags to start with. Even with all the cuts, the amount of opportunity in Wyoming is staggering...and they're literally giving it away to cheap Residents.

That concerns me more than anything.... The Wyoming Game and Fish is the only one who is getting paid to manage the resource, maybe the Wyoming Game and Fish should be doing their job!!!!

They are doing their jobs...the hunting and fishing opportunities being provided by the G&F is incredible, considering they're doing it on a shoe-string budget.

The train-wreck coming via the bright ideas of WYSFW and WOGA is going to cause way more damage to your opportunities than shelling out a bit more money for your tag fees. You want to see opporuntities lost...look at what WYSFW/WOGA are already supporting. Ranching for wildlife, trying to torpedo the WGBGLC, torpedoing accessyes, outfitter sponsored licenses, etc. etc. etc.

Our best bet, as Residents it to sit down with the WG&F, open up our wallets, and make WOGA and WYSFW insignificant in "helping" to fund them. Control needs to remain with the G&F and Resident hunters. If it doesnt be prepared to lose opportunity.
 
I wonder if that worthless idiot Lee Livingston had something to do with this.

That guy is only out for himself like most outtfitters
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-13 AT 05:06PM (MST)[p]Buzz,

You educated government guys are really good at pointing out everything that does not line up with your point of view. I wonder if you use those same perceptive goggles when looking at your own performance or the WY F&G. It is easy for you to distract everyone with your whipping boys WYOGA and WYSFW. Your good at smoke and mirrors I will certainly give you that.

You are right the FS and the G&F were not meant to operate for a profit. It would be nice if YOU/THEY did not destroy the resource in the name of funding another study. Another study so some over educated A$$ like your self could blow smoke up the publics A$$. Kind of like the recent study to come out of Yellowstone, concerning why the elk are doing so poorly. You remember it's because of the fish and the bears.... That is another example of a WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY BILLED TO THE TAX PAYERS!!!!! IT DOES NOT TAKE A FUK'N ROCKET SCIENTIST TO SEE THE SMOKE ON THAT STUDY!! CAN YOU SAY CANIS LUPUS!!!!!!!

For the record I think "us" Wyoming resident should pay more. But "we" should get some better management for our dollars. The management should never be about the budget. Example Western Wyoming Mule Deer in a nose dive!!! Example Platte Valley mule deer herd in a nose dive. Example Cody's elk herd in a nose dive!!! Jacksons elk herd in a nose dive!!!
 
The only thing I see in that proposal that I like is giving out more elk tags.

We have too many elk in many units-to the detriment of mule deer.

The remainder of that proposal is crap.

My guess is WYOGA figures if they ask for 60%,maybe they'll get a compromise at 50%.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-13 AT 05:33PM (MST)[p]WH---Talk about somebody blowing smoke out their azz, LOL!!! In case you haven't realized it, mule deer are going downhill everywhere throughout their western range, so it isn't all the WY G&F folks fault! There are many factors and it gets a little old to hear you spout your BS about how bad the G&F is every time the subject comes up. Why don't you go manage the department with the limited resources they have for the many diverse jobs and species, both game and nongame, that they are mandated to do and we'll see how friggin smart you are! I'll go with an educated employee every time over a wiseacre that thinks he knows everything, but never gives an answer as to how to cure the problem! It figures you'd be the one to take this thread into the toilet like you do with most every other post you make on here!

nontypical---I think you're right on the button as far as the elk being a detriment to the mule deer. For the most part It's my opinion that they really don't like to be in an area where there are a lot of elk. Where I hunt every year the elk are exploding and I'm seing a downward trend almost every year in the mulies in the area.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-13 AT 06:14PM (MST)[p]As with all agencies that are run with taxpayer/fee money, ie, the government, education system, wildlife agencies etc........before they start taxing/raising fees from the general public, I would rather see a thorough internal audit done to prove where the funds are being allocated and used. Prove to your customers first that the funds you receive from them are properly used, then if prices need to be raised, go ahead and raise them. With a plan of how to use the influx of new money.

Simply raising prices does nothing to fix the problem. That's like saying you've got a leak in a bucket and the solution is to turn on the hose and fill the bucket.

I don't care what anybody says, whenever a group receives money in the form of a "budget", the money gets wasted. Period.

I'm a non resident of Wyoming, I try to hunt there as much as I can draw tags. Deer, Elk and Antelope. So far, I've been willing to pay the special money for the deer tags in Region G. How many residents would be willing to pay the exorbant prices that non residents are willing to pay?
 
Tags have gone up some the last few years.

A game warden during deer hunting season said that tag prices haven't gone up in 8 years, I said your high cause I notice a Small increase every couple of years. Im willing to pay more for a tag but im not willing to pay a extreme amount. I will say our moose, sheep and goat tags are pretty cheap and im surprised they are not more.

This year I drew a Montana deer tag as a non-resident and it was almost $600 dollars. Now that's rough. This will also be my last year to buy that tag. That's an expensive steak for later if I get one.

The Game fish need to look into some better help. While working up in the park I noticed 2 game wardens that came to the construction job I was on. I asked the guys if they regulate animals in the park. They smiled and said they drove from Cody to Lake Hotel to check out the new upgrades on the hotel.

Hell the warden MR. Saxton got a DUI in a work truck. Now I think he resigned, but he should of been fired A.S.A.P.

As I stated before I don't know what the best plan is for the game and fish. I cant say much without seeing how they spend every penny. But I am not for helping the outfitters more. Yes there is some good outfitters out there and others are just NO good for us hunters..
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-13 AT 07:29PM (MST)[p]TG -

Mule deer are in a nose dive, but the WH does have at least one good point. The Platte Valley deer herd was a major screw up by G&F. They used the wrong population model for 20+ years. It is my understanding it wasn't until the biologist retired that the mistake was caught by the new biologist. Anyone who spent time in the valley knew there was a major problem years ago. It was a cash cow for G&F as it gave Cheyenne hunters a place to hunt general deer. Once again, managing for money and not the species. In the end, they screwed the pooch. I don't agree with WH with the Cody elk herd. The G&F's hands were tied. I guess WH could argue that WY's wolf plan was at fault, but that was a result of politicians, not the WY G&F. As far as Western WY deer, I think they are trying to address the problem. Maybe, not as aggressive as I would like to see, but they are making progress.
 
nfh---The last tag price increase we had was in 2008, not 8 years ago, and they come in big jumps when they do, not little ones here and there. I wish they could get a decent increase for residents and NRs along with a set small increase every year so they don't continue to have these budget problems every few years and have to ask for big increases.

G14---I won't argue that the G&F doesn't screw up once in a while and from what I understand you guys are correct on your assessment of the Platte Valley herd. I had not heard of using the wrong population model that you mentioned, but I heard they issued way too many tags for way too long. That was either because they believed the biologist knew what he was doing or just plain used it like you said as a cash cow. I don't pretend to know the answer, but the result is the same in that the deer herd has suffered and is way down by all accounts.
 
>How many residents would be willing to
>pay the exorbant prices that
>non residents are willing to
>pay?

You could say the same in Colorado, Montana, Nevada, etc. So what's yer point...
 
See and I was just thinking instead of adding permits to the non- residents pool we ought to cut them, LOL. I'd feel sorry for the poor legislator that supports increasing our already incredible generous allocation of permits (compared to other states)that go to non- residents.

The 1000 extra elk tags seems good @ face value. Let's face it we have plenty of elk. The problem I see is there is a % of non- residents who pay the "special fee" to get a general elk tag every year, or at least every other year. a percentage of the extra permits would have to cover the lost revenue from the guys who no longer need to pay the "special" fee for elk tags. Dumping a 1000 more resident or non- resident hunters into the general elk pool would also make a less enjoyable experience for everyone with more crowds especially in the popular areas.

As far as the G&F budget whoa's I no longer care. They keep churning out crap with the same retarded ideology year after year then they deserve to feel the heat. Pander to the general public with unlimited opportunity while the deer herd continues to slide into the garbage chute. When they get serious about restoring quality to Wyoming I'll get serious about supporting funding increases. Until then I can live with game wardens driving trucks with 150k and the G&F not printing off hundreds of thousands of hunting brochures every year.
 
>>How many residents would be willing to
>>pay the exorbant prices that
>>non residents are willing to
>>pay?
>
>You could say the same in
>Colorado, Montana, Nevada, etc.
>So what's yer point...


***The point is that all the residents out in those states are cheap bass turds that don't want NRs around, but love the fact that the money they represent feeds the trough. In the case of Wyoming approximately 80% of the incoming license fees are from NRs. It's about time that residents either put up or shut up when it comes to supporting the agencies and as long as NRs are paying the bulk of the budget IMHO we ought to have a decent say in what happens instead of getting blamed for the problems and told to stay home or go some place else! Sorry, but when someone is carrying the heavy load they should have just a little bit of say in where the load is placed.
 
> See and I
>was just thinking instead of
>adding permits to the non-
>residents pool we ought to
>cut them, LOL. I'd
>feel sorry for the poor
>legislator that supports increasing our
>already incredible generous allocation of
>permits (compared to other states)that
>go to non- residents.
>
>The 1000 extra elk tags seems
>good @ face value.
>Let's face it we have
>plenty of elk. The
>problem I see is there
>is a % of non-
>residents who pay the "special
>fee" to get a general
>elk tag every year, or
>at least every other year.
> a percentage of the
>extra permits would have to
>cover the lost revenue from
>the guys who no longer
>need to pay the "special"
>fee for elk tags.
>Dumping a 1000 more resident
>or non- resident hunters into
>the general elk pool would
>also make a less enjoyable
>experience for everyone with more
>crowds especially in the popular
>areas.
>
>As far as the G&F budget
>whoa's I no longer care.
> They keep churning out
>crap with the same retarded
>ideology year after year then
>they deserve to feel the
>heat. Pander to the
>general public with unlimited opportunity
>while the deer herd continues
>to slide into the garbage
>chute. When they get
>serious about restoring quality to
>Wyoming I'll get serious about
>supporting funding increases. Until
>then I can live with
>game wardens driving trucks with
>150k and the G&F not
>printing off hundreds of thousands
>of hunting brochures every year.


***Therein lies a big part of the problem in that a lot of residents just don't give a damn and would rather stick their head in the sand or turn their backs on the problems, rather than to step up and get things done to make changes if they don't like the way things are run. I don't believe the 1000 tag increase proposal is to general tags as that wouldn't benefit the outfitters who I believe are mostly guiding in LE units. The proposal would obviously be to their major benefit or they wouldn't even be bringing it forward. I also have no idea where you are coming from in your 60/40 logic if 20% more people have to pay the higher fee to get the tag they want if the fee ratio was reversed. That is exactly a big part of what would raise that estimated 2.5 million dollars. IMHO the plan stinks because the NRs would be asked to subsidize even more of the G&F budget even though there would be an increase in tag numbers for them. Can you imagine what would happen to the department if there was a NR boycott for just one year and they tried to get by on 20% of what they need if they just had resident fees coming in? It probably wouldn't even pay for the vehicles and gas for employees to do their jobs. IMHO the resident license fees could be doubled and nobody should have a beef when the same crybabies go out and spend a fortune on alcohol, cigarettes, etc. In summary, IMO NRs should carry a big load in order to recreate in another state, but the load needs to be equalized at least a tad when you look at the low prices residents pay for their big game licenses.
 
>>>How many residents would be willing to
>>>pay the exorbant prices that
>>>non residents are willing to
>>>pay?
>>
>>You could say the same in
>>Colorado, Montana, Nevada, etc.
>>So what's yer point...
>
>
>***The point is that all the
>residents out in those states
>are cheap bass turds that
>don't want NRs around, but
>love the fact that the
>money they represent feeds the
>trough. In the case
>of Wyoming approximately 80% of
>the incoming license fees are
>from NRs. It's about
>time that residents either put
>up or shut up when
>it comes to supporting the
>agencies and as long as
>NRs are paying the bulk
>of the budget IMHO we
>ought to have a decent
>say in what happens instead
>of getting blamed for the
>problems and told to stay
>home or go some place
>else! Sorry, but when
>someone is carrying the heavy
>load they should have just
>a little bit of say
>in where the load is
>placed.

The vast majority of resident hunters I know would pay an increase in license fees. 100% of the resident hunters that I know, that care about the resource, would pay the increase.(it was WYSFW that fought the license fee increase and they represent almost no one in Wy)
Everyone I personally have spoke with so far is against any increase in NR elk tags(any elk, antlered or general) or a change in allocation, unless it means more resident tags.

The outfitters don't have a clue what kind of fight we will put up and the Wy G&F won't set themselves up to be in the middle of the battle.

My opinion is that this is a well thought out plan by WOGA & WYSFW to get residents to 'beg' for the license fee increase to short circuit these outfitter proposals.
 
According to G&F personnel,almost every comment they received in regards to license fee increases to resident hunters was OPPOSED to any license fee increases.

My personal opinion is I don't mind paying more for our licenses-as it stands now,the license is the cheapest part of the hunt. Wyoming residents have got to be the most spoiled hunters in the country.

Feduptwo-When I say I'm in favor of more elk tags,I am only talking about general areas-not LQ. You know as well as I do that elk out-compete smaller species(mule deer) for the prime fawning/calving areas. It's my opinion that the rise in elk populations over the past 30 yrs is directly related to the mule deer decline.

Smitty-I agree with everything you said.I put in for many out of state hunts,so I know about exorbitant prices! Fat needed to be trimmed,and WG&F is in the process of doing that now. Hunting is not cheap. You are way better off economically having a cow or pig slaughtered if you are worried about filling the freezer.

NFH-Were you referring to GW Sax?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-01-13 AT 02:12PM (MST)[p]nontypical---I also heard that most comments offered up during the hearing on license increases was negative and the SFW did just what Smokestick stated and lobbied hard against any increases. I have to agree that the resident license fees are a joke and need to be adjusted upwards a pretty good percentage so that those that live out there start pulling their own weight. Everyone should be ashamed when you see how cheap the three major animal licenses cost and then people say they don't want to pay more, but turn around and pay a fortune for their beer, cigs, nights out at restaurants, etc. Please know that I'm not talking about the majority of folks on this Forum that respond, as I think if everyone was as realistic and dedicated to the outdoors as most of you are that there wouldn't be a problem like this to talk about.
 
What does a Wyoming resident pay for a deer or elk tag? Whatever it is compare it to the cost of a week on the ski slopes, taking your family to a Jazz game, a nice dinner in jackson, how much you paid for that nice new 4 wheeler, that horse or that new rifle,camera, binos ect.
My point is that we devalue the cost of our wildlife as residents of any state. What is it worth to spend a week or much more in God's country doing what you love more than anything else and maybe even have the chance at the buck or bull of a lifetime? All residents seem to expect to be able to do those things for next to nothing while not realizing these are renewable resources that indeed need to be renewed. It is not a God given right to go out and hunt big deer and elk, it is a privilege. Is it worth $100, $200 or more? If you want to pay 30 bucks for a deer license than expect to get what you pay for. It costs about 50 bucks for 18 holes and a cart to go and be frustrated for 4 hours but we want to pitch a fit to pay that much for a deer tag that can pay us back with untold amounts of joy and relaxation.
What you get from that deer or elk tag far exceeds what you pay for it in my opinion.
 
....government agencies...from local to state to federal...never have and never will have all the money they want to spend.

No matter how much they get...it is NEVER enough.

I don't care what side any of us are on, I don't care what the outfitters want, I don't care what WYOSFW wants......government always wants and needs more.
 
If hunt quality was tied to permit price I would pay $250+ a year for a deer tag. I have two nonresident deer tags for NV and CO that I paid somewhere in the ballpark for this year. At the rate were going I believe a fee increase is like giving a alcoholic a drink or a junkie a fix. Were not helping the problem were saying its ok to keep hunting our mule deer until theres not one shred of quality left in the state of Wyoming. The only units that are worth a F#)&% is the units that take extreme physical ability or horses and mules to access. Even these units can be extremely overhunted especially in the popular drainages with reputations for big bucks.
I know the G&F can't do much do increase populations with drought and extreme winters that we've seen the last decade but if there is substansially less deer you can't maintain the same level of hunters and expect not to have a effect on age class, and quality of animals.
They've ruined ha 102 and then they blatently ignored 15-25 sportsmen in the room that asked them to decrease permits to maybe restore quality in a few years.
Let me also say that I support huge increases in the cost of Bighorn sheep, goat, and bison tags. There is no reason the above mentioned resident tags aren't $375 or more. My main concern is the Wyoming G&F unwillingness to take take the funding mechanism off the backs of mule deer and shift it to elk or some other species and until they get the message I can't support a increase in the cost of a deer permit for residents or non residents.
 
How does that stack up to "general" season tag prices for residents in Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. I'm pretty sure were within dollars of most of these states "general" or not special permits (I know CO and NV are all limited quota but I'm not aware of any premium units in the state where prices are the same.

Utah does one of the smartest things I've seen and that is charging more for areas that have "premium" quality. The price doubles or triples. The Wyoming G&F is adamently opposed to this with the excuse that you price the average guy out of the game. The permit will always be the cheapest cost of the game. If you can't afford it hunt general season.
Quality should be defined as a average age of harvest of 5.5 years of age (mandatory harvest reporting) 30 bucks/100 does with deer that are obviously yearling bucks not being counted as bucks.
 
fedup,

Very well stated from start to finish. Thanks for bringing some logic to the table. I've been BEGGING Game and Fish to offer quality deer hunts for over a decade and it falls on completely deaf ears. I'm not sure they can even comprehend the possibilities even though other states have models we could use.

Another thing G&F does not understand is that hunters who want a quality experience go elsewhere. I also hunt CO, NV, UT and Alberta for deer, but I have been to many other places as well.

The management we have at home is a joke; just driven for money. Thanks for the words and keep up the effort when you get whacked. Most of us support what you are saying.

And rest assured, someone will blast you soon. But most people who know the situation and have lived here a while support you. THANKS.
 
Premium priced hunts will never happen in Wyoming for one reason and it's not the Wy G&F. It's resident hunters. The G&F actually proposed premium priced hunts about 8 years ago and were shot down at meetings by residents.

All is not always what it seems...
 
Never is a long, long time. I try not to use the word because it is so eternal. Things change through time and attitudes also change. I can still remember the 70's and the way things were. Might be some things in place now that were never anticipated 40 years ago.

That said, you are close to right. Change comes slowly in Wyoming and that's not all bad. But I do believe many hunters in Wyoming have an increased interest in quality hunts, and many of those same people are willing to pay for a higher quality product. I'm also convinced we lose many in our hunting fraternity because we have not been able to provide an experience of sufficient quality to keep them interested in the best sport we have.
 
>Never is a long, long time.
> I try not to
>use the word because it
>is so eternal. Things
>change through time and attitudes
>also change. I can
>still remember the 70's and
>the way things were.
>Might be some things in
>place now that were never
>anticipated 40 years ago.
>
>That said, you are close to
>right. Change comes slowly
>in Wyoming and that's not
>all bad. But I do
>believe many hunters in Wyoming
>have an increased interest in
>quality hunts, and many of
>those same people are willing
>to pay for a higher
>quality product. I'm also
>convinced we lose many in
>our hunting fraternity because we
>have not been able to
>provide an experience of sufficient
>quality to keep them interested
>in the best sport we
>have.

Ok Jim, I'll buy that but for one thing. The guys willing to pay extra for a premium hunt area are most likely the ones who will stick with hunting no matter what. Like you and me.

Those we lose are going to be lost one way or the other. The real hitch with premium areas is opportunity and not many people will get it. That's what loses hunters.

Back to what this thread was about. I hear you have a good rep as an outfitter. These proposals will do no good to the relationship between outfitters and resident hunters.
 
Can't argue with that. I've never joined an outfitter organization, mostly because my beliefs were not closely aligned with theirs. There are many good outfitters, and others that really bear watching (like most any other business). Most of the outfitters in organizations are public land focused and I am just not in that same trend of thought.

I don't operate on public lands. I kinda laughed when BUZZ said what have outfitters ever done for management. Last year, I leased over 200,000 acres, much of it prime habitat. We took 5 deer off of a 78,000 acre ranch and 3 deer off of another 40,000 acre ranch. I could take many times more, but I'm really conservative. I'd rather see the deer than have a little extra $$. And I also cut 25 acres of encroaching pine trees out of some prime mahogany with my chain saw. I killed thousands of pine trees and made that country much better for mule deer, and no one helped me. And this year, I am getting started on another timber cutting project. I am also serving on the Platte Vally Habitat Partnership team, trying to address mule deer as the top priority in the Upper North Platte around Saratoga and Encampment. I work on a lot of individual projects, too. Working on three spring devleopments right now and a reservoir rehab. So there are some outfitters who care about wildlife and do their part. We just are not prone to "toot our horns" very often. And I also have a full-time job, plus raise hay and run cattle and do some outfitting.

I guess people will find what they are looking for. If you are looking for problems and disagreement with outfitters, you'll find it. But if you are looking for good outfitters who care first about the resource base and the future of our herds, you can find those too. I was a hunter long before I outfitted and I'll be a hunter till I die. The future of mule deer has been one of my top priorities for as long as I can remember. Some people tithe to a church. I tithe to mule deer and have never regretted it. I live in this place because of mule deer and I will do all I can to make sure my grandkids see those muleys every day like I do.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-05-13 AT 10:46AM (MST)[p]Hey ICM, what do you do in your "spare" time,LOL?!!! Good for you and if I lived out there I'd be right out there with ya pitchin in because that's what it's going to take to help the animals come back.
 
ICMDEER,

Great Post! I respect what you say and do. Wish more deer hunters had your resolve!! My favorite deer area is public land so following in your foot steps on habitat would be hard for me. I try to do my part as well... The predators I kill every year work out to be a net positive for my herd.

We all need to do our part. Wish Buzz did more than kill a walk-in cooler full of game and criticize everyone who might try to think outside the box (or ESTABLISHMENT). I would bet you ICMDEER have done more for deer in your area then the over educated biologist who is getting paid to help deer. Good for YOU!
 
+1. I often wonder if any of it does any good,but I'll keep trying to help my favorite species to hunt as well. Kudos,Jim.
 
Thanks, guys. I don't much believe in spare time. Try to do something productive every day. You are "spot on" with respect to the public lands issue, but I hope people can help private landowners and possibly volunteer on public lands. The North Platte Valley Habitat Partnership I'm on hopes to be removing some encroaching trees (mainly juniper) after the BLM gets through the NEPA process. Told them I'd cut 10 acres per year myself and I will let everyone know if there is an opportunity.

As I said, I live in Wyoming first and foremost for the mule deer and then for the great people. Being a good neighbor is part of our rural heritage and I really appreciate all that has been done for me through the years.

Let's keep this positive approach and all do what we can for mule deer and habitat.
 
It's time for some of these states like WY and MT to raise the fees for residents. Somewhere around $100 for a resident elk tag is still reasonable and not asking too much for locals to step up and get their wallets out. That's barely more than a tank of gas at today's prices so let's not cry foul here. Give youth a break on their tags so we can get them out hunting but let's quit whining and pony up. Non-res hunters are getting taken to the woodshed to support some of our states, which is fine and dandy until they say enough is enough but lets see the locals start putting more than some loose change in the kitty each year and start paying for their tags with more than a couple rolls of quarters.
Just my .02 as someone who hunts as many western states and species as I can.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-08-13 AT 08:20AM (MST)[p]Game and fish can take care of the residents like Montana. looks like for Montana its 20 bucks for a resident.

I can handle a small increase but not a double increase.

I know a few poor people that scrape by for extra reduced doe tags to feed their family. Higher cost do affect poor familes.
 
>Thanks, guys. I don't much
>believe in spare time.
>Try to do something productive
>every day. You are
>"spot on" with respect to
>the public lands issue, but
>I hope people can help
>private landowners and possibly volunteer
>on public lands. The
>North Platte Valley Habitat Partnership
>I'm on hopes to be
>removing some encroaching trees (mainly
>juniper) after the BLM gets
>through the NEPA process.
>Told them I'd cut 10
>acres per year myself and
>I will let everyone know
>if there is an opportunity.
>
>
>As I said, I live in
>Wyoming first and foremost for
>the mule deer and then
>for the great people.
>Being a good neighbor is
>part of our rural heritage
>and I really appreciate all
>that has been done for
>me through the years.
>
>Let's keep this positive approach and
>all do what we can
>for mule deer and habitat.
>

Jim, I very much respect what you do, but with all due respect you brought up losing hunters due to lack of quality hunting. You manage deer on leased private land(200,000 acres)and that is good for you and your hunters, possibly a little spill-over on public. When all the other outfitter leases in Wyoming are added together it amounts to much more than a little real estate. That doesn't take into account Non-resident LANDOWNERS who are buying up traditional ranches and closing them to make their own hunting preserves.

By far, finding a good place to hunt is the #1 reason people don't hunt or quit hunting. If the G&F managed strictly for premium hunts, there would be very little opportunity for most to hunt at all. You can do all the habitat improvement you want(it does help), but the only way to keep that area 'premium' is to limit hunters, just like you do.

We all may have different opinions of the G&F, Lord knows sometimes I can't figure out why they do some things, but they are saddled with a huge burden and it's not just to please guys like us that want to see sky high buck/doe ratios and lots of 5+ yr old bucks with 190+ racks. I'm afraid the future of mule deer hunting in Wyo is in for many more changes that will mean less opportunity for most hunters.
 
I hope you're right when you say Wyo is in for changes that will limit opportunity for hunters. In my opinion,this is LONG overdue. When you consider the fact that we can hunt pronghorn,deer(2 species),bear,mtn lion,turkey,elk(did I name them all?);with the possibility of also hunting moose,bighorn sheep and mtn goat ALL IN THE SAME YEAR, Wyoming hunters are the most spoiled in the country. I don't know of any other states(maybe Montana or Colorado) that have the opportunities we do in this state. It's my opinion that the resources are diminishing(except elk in most areas) for the most part-especially mule deer and antelope. The big difference is that antelope is ALL limited quota, while mule deer are fair game for as many people that want to hunt them throughout most of the state. WTF? It's time WG&F realize the resource can no longer take the pressure it did 20-30 yrs ago, and make some changes.

Do any of us really need 3,4,5 or more big game animals in the freezer every year? In this day and age?

I would gladly sacrifice hunting mulies for a year or 2 if I could have a quality hunt that 2nd or 3rd year. I know many folks don't feel that way. I would just go deer hunting with a buddy on my off years of not being able to hunt. But that's just me.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-09-13 AT 05:48PM (MST)[p]>I hope you're right when you
>say Wyo is in for
>changes that will limit opportunity
>for hunters. In my opinion,this
>is LONG overdue. When you
>consider the fact that we
>can hunt pronghorn,deer(2 species),bear,mtn lion,turkey,elk(did
>I name them all?);with the
>possibility of also hunting moose,bighorn
>sheep and mtn goat ALL
>IN THE SAME YEAR, Wyoming
>hunters are the most spoiled
>in the country. I don't
>know of any other states(maybe
>Montana or Colorado) that have
>the opportunities we do in
>this state. It's my opinion
>that the resources are diminishing(except
>elk in most areas) for
>the most part-especially mule deer
>and antelope. The big difference
>is that antelope is ALL
>limited quota, while mule deer
>are fair game for as
>many people that want to
>hunt them throughout most of
>the state. WTF? It's time
>WG&F realize the resource can
>no longer take the pressure
>it did 20-30 yrs ago,
>and make some changes.
>
>Do any of us really need
>3,4,5 or more big game
>animals in the freezer every
>year? In this day and
>age?
>
>I would gladly sacrifice hunting mulies
>for a year or 2
>if I could have a
>quality hunt that 2nd or
>3rd year. I know many
>folks don't feel that way.
>I would just go deer
>hunting with a buddy on
>my off years of not
>being able to hunt. But
>that's just me.


Nontypical- I have to ask, since you hide your profile, are you an outfitter? You seem to speak down at residents and think it's ok for 1000 more nonresident elk tags as long as they are general? The elk herds I know about that are over objective are in limited quota areas. Which general areas have too many elk?

And with all due respect, I live in Wyoming for the opportunity we have here. If mule deer is your main focus you live in the wrong state. As I have already mentioned, trying to please everyone is a 'no win' situation. Trophy mule deer are still out there and if hunters want to work hard and sacrifice, they can succeed.

Yes, it bums me out that we don't have the deer hunting of the past. My biggest deer have come from general areas that have been devastated by CWD and predators. Most likely I will not see the hunting I had in the 90's ever again. My motto used to be "a lot of bucks have to grow old for there to be a few giants" Now it's hard to find a buck older than three around here. I don't blame the G&F for that.

One thing for sure, we have the best elk hunting I have ever seen these days and I'm going to take advantage of that!
 
JM77---I'm wondering why you would think that from the comments by nontypical that he would be an outfitter. It seemed to me like most everything he stated is pretty accurate and what most everyone else is saying, as he did say the elk are doing well everywhere but deer and antelope are suffering. From what other members are saying here and the tag cuts the G&F made this year, it seems to bear that out.
 
http://trib.com/opinion/editorial/w...cle_3efc0005-7a34-512b-81a6-446f4065a428.html

This editorial was in the paper today. Pretty much sum's up a few alternatives but spells out license fee hikes need to be reconsidered. Its just a matter of time. Resident fee's may take a hit which I'd support, but non rezi's will definitely go up sooner than later. Its simple economics. Non rezi demand far exceeds supply and they can't vote...
 
>JM77---I'm wondering why you would think
>that from the comments by
>nontypical that he would be
>an outfitter. It seemed
>to me like most everything
>he stated is pretty accurate
>and what most everyone else
>is saying, as he did
>say the elk are doing
>well everywhere but deer and
>antelope are suffering. From
>what other members are saying
>here and the tag cuts
>the G&F made this year,
>it seems to bear that
>out.


Mike- he keeps calling residents "spoiled", sounds like what an outfitter would say and believe me I have first hand experience on what some outfitters think of resident hunters.

Elk are up and deer and antelope down, no kidding!! Did you read what I was saying?? Why is it elk are doing so well outside traditional general areas? I'll answer that: it's because the G&F can't manage them due to private land. It doesn't take elk long to figure out where they are safe. The G&F here has objectives and issues lots of antlerless tags and they still can't get the kill. However, in general areas there is no overabundance of elk that I know of, so why would nontypical think more nonresident general elk tags would be good? It would only over crowd, but if you were an outfitter it might get you some more clients. Right?
 
>>JM77---I'm wondering why you would think
>>that from the comments by
>>nontypical that he would be
>>an outfitter. It seemed
>>to me like most everything
>>he stated is pretty accurate
>>and what most everyone else
>>is saying, as he did
>>say the elk are doing
>>well everywhere but deer and
>>antelope are suffering. From
>>what other members are saying
>>here and the tag cuts
>>the G&F made this year,
>>it seems to bear that
>>out.
>
>
>Mike- he keeps calling residents "spoiled",
>sounds like what an outfitter
>would say and believe me
>I have first hand experience
>on what some outfitters think
>of resident hunters.
>
>Elk are up and deer and
>antelope down, no kidding!! Did
>you read what I was
>saying?? Why is it elk
>are doing so well outside
>traditional general areas? I'll answer
>that: it's because the G&F
>can't manage them due to
>private land. It doesn't take
>elk long to figure out
>where they are safe. The
>G&F here has objectives and
>issues lots of antlerless tags
>and they still can't get
>the kill. However, in general
>areas there is no overabundance
>of elk that I know
>of, so why would nontypical
>think more nonresident general elk
>tags would be good? It
>would only over crowd, but
>if you were an outfitter
>it might get you some
>more clients. Right?


***Sorry JM77, but I'm not so sure I can go along with that theory and I do think that at least the older residents are a little spoiled when comparing the "old" days to now. However, as BuzzH has pointed out a number of times, there is still an awful lot of opportunity for residents if they would settle for hunting general areas and units that aren't real hard to draw. I'm not sure, so I'll ask this question. Are there very many outfitters that hunt the general elk areas where nontypical feels an increase of 1000 tags won't hurt anything? I would just assume that most would be operating in LE units and taking NRs for the most part, but that's strictly a guess and I may be way off base.
 
nontypical is not an outfitter. Never has been. He's just a die-hard advocate for mule deer in Wyoming and willing to sacrifice for the well-being of mule deer. He applies for licenses in several states and also hunts elsewhere. But I'll let him provide his own details.

Like me, he's willing to sacrifice annual hunting for quality. I hunt every year, but have not shot a mule deer in Wyoming since 2007. And that was a bow kill.

Good discussions and solid, well informed people with different opinions. That's healthy.

I'm fine with an increase in license fees, but would still prefer that there be other management options for mule deer. It will always amaze me that that antelope have been 100% limited quota for decades and mule deer are still hunted like they are in big numbers.
 
ICMDEER: "It will always amaze me that that antelope have been 100% limited quota for decades and mule deer are still hunted like they are in big numbers."

***What do you figure the G&F reasoning is for that or do you even have an educated guess? I hope it's not strictly the money involved, but the more I listen to some of the residents that are disgruntled about the mule deer situation it sure makes me wonder!
 
>>>Mike- he keeps calling residents "spoiled",
>>sounds like what an outfitter
>>would say and believe me
>>I have first hand experience
>>on what some outfitters think
>>of resident hunters.
>>
>>Elk are up and deer and
>>antelope down, no kidding!! Did
>>you read what I was
>>saying?? Why is it elk
>>are doing so well outside
>>traditional general areas? I'll answer
>>that: it's because the G&F
>>can't manage them due to
>>private land. It doesn't take
>>elk long to figure out
>>where they are safe. The
>>G&F here has objectives and
>>issues lots of antlerless tags
>>and they still can't get
>>the kill. However, in general
>>areas there is no overabundance
>>of elk that I know
>>of, so why would nontypical
>>think more nonresident general elk
>>tags would be good? It
>>would only over crowd, but
>>if you were an outfitter
>>it might get you some
>>more clients. Right?
>
>
>***Sorry JM77, but I'm not so
>sure I can go along
>with that theory and I
>do think that at least
>the older residents are a
>little spoiled when comparing the
>"old" days to now.
>However, as BuzzH has pointed
>out a number of times,
>there is still an awful
>lot of opportunity for residents
>if they would settle for
>hunting general areas and units
>that aren't real hard to
>draw. I'm not sure, so
>I'll ask this question.
>Are there very many outfitters
>that hunt the general elk
>areas where nontypical feels an
>increase of 1000 tags won't
>hurt anything? I would
>just assume that most would
>be operating in LE units
>and taking NRs for the
>most part, but that's strictly
>a guess and I may
>be way off base.


Mike
what do you mean the older residents are 'spoiled' because of the old days? Maybe they were spoiled in the old days! Do you know something about someone that I don't. PM me

And you don't need to reference Buzz about the opportunity here in Wyo, I stated that's why I live here. Guess I don't follow what you mean there. Most residents hunt general if they don't draw a LQ area. Some won't hunt at all if they don't draw. Some hunt only general, but that's mostly on the western side.
Many will make the most of a good tag if they draw and not spend much time on other species.

As far as outfitters hunting general elk areas, that's a big yes. I would guess a large number of nonresident general tag holders go with outfitters. What your not understanding, and ask Buzz about this, if you put more nonresidents in general areas, with or without outfitters, you will impact residents hunters. Sorry, I live here, 365 days a year and I don't care to have that happen.

I don't know where Nontypical thinks there are too many elk in a general area, but I'd like to know. If that were the case, there would be plenty of residents going there to help manage all these extra general area elk!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-09-13 AT 10:04PM (MST)[p]Wyoming, like most of the Western States, are going to have to come up with some solutions to the budget woes they're facing.

The hunting/fishing public has become spoiled, not from opportunity, but rather from the G&F doing more with less for the last decade.

Further, the G&F has rarely not agreed to fund anything to do with wildlife...from non-game to upland birds, to grizzly bears, and everything in between.

The G&F has reached the point that traditional funding is not going to address all the stresses that are being applied to the G&F budget.

Its either cut programs or find non-traditional funding.

Coming up with scatter-brained ideas like adding 1K non-resident elk tags is a poor idea. Like jm77 accurately stated...finding a place to hunt or losing access is the #1 reason hunters either quit, or never start hunting. Adding more licenses will just increase that problem.

Make no mistake, the addition of tags is something that is VERY easy for the outfitters to push. They dont pay one cent of freight on that kind of idea, and only have 1K new potential clients to gain. Win-win for them, but a total loss of opportunity and a quality experience for DIY Resident and Non-Resident hunters who hunt general areas.

If the outfitters were such champions of increasing the general elk tags by 1K, why dont they repeal the guide requirement for general elk areas within Wilderness boundaries?

That would greatly help spread out the pressure of an additional 1k elk tags, and they'd be "sacrificing" something for those 1K additional tags as well.

I can assure you, that wont happen though. Anytime there is a "compromise" reached by WYSFW or WOGA its the publics resources that are "compromised"...right down the fuggin' drain. Right along with DIY resident and non-resident opportunity.

Well, I can tell you all that I'm well past done "compromising" my opportunities and my public wildlife away for the sake of a handful of outfitters.

Its also well past time for the Resident hunters to pony up more money. Maybe, for the first time ever, WOGA can come up with a few dollars for the G&F to fund the resource they take from with both hands.

License fee increases alone are not going to solve the G&F funding issues. All that does is just kick the can a bit farther down the same road. In a couple years, we'll be having the exact same discussions.

As to the comment about Residents being spoiled by opportunity...not true. People live in Wyoming for those opportunities and sacrifice plenty to get them.
 
Nontypical is not an outfitter. And, while we sometimes do not agree on issues, I do respect his opinions & always treat them as another way to look at things regardless if I like them or not. He is a good man that cares enough to speak up.

As for the elk.....from the Wyoming/ID border to Big Piney & Pinedale area west/east....from Kemmerer to Jackson south/north. I would politely say those (gen unit) elk are mainly on public land & are way out of control in terms of numbers.

I am not educated enough to say more gen elk tags are right or wrong, but the western part of the state that has held historic deer herds is becoming shameful at how things are headed.

Glad this has been a civil discussion....look forward to everyons's ideas, right or wrong. Hopefully something finally positive comes out of all of this.
 
I am a nonresident applying in multiple states. I am getting pinched hard enough financially and will not be able to support anymore tag increases. I will be getting out of the game soon in WY and elsewhere if they continue to raise fees. I live in Utah, and have far less big game opportunities than resident in WY have.
 
I'd gladly sell another 1000 elk tags if they would relieve pressure off the deer herds and do it in a way that they just didn't dump another 1000 hunters into the general season. Some special late season either sex tags for each unit could quickly add 1000 without adding additional pressure to the general season. Wyoming g&f is in a pickle and they need to start thinking outside the box. Maybe the number isn't 1000. Maybe its 500.
Its also time that we start splitting seasons like Colorado. We no longer have the resources to support 90 day general deer seasons in Wyoming. Not to mention the fact that you can sell more tags with the same impact on the resource. For the record I am opposed to state wide limited quota because with the current landowners tag system a gigantic % of permits would be sucked off the top by landowners
I promise nontypical doesn't support another 1000 elk hunters thrown into the fray unchecked.

I also promise that a sportsman group or legislator that supports a increase in % of tags for nonresidents will feel the wrath of god and will wish they didn't.
 
feduptwo: "I also promise that a sportsman group or legislator that supports a increase in % of tags for nonresidents will feel the wrath of god and will wish they didn't."

***Even as dumb as some of these Legislators seem to be on the various issues that are brought to them, I doubt that one would be dumb enough to support an increase in NR Tags. After all, Wyoming has always been very generous with it's tag allocations and that's one reason I hunt there every year. I don't try to draw a bull tag because they are just too darn hard to draw where I hunt, so I enjoy helping others fill tags when they draw. GHowever, I can buy multiple cow licenses if I so choose, along with a couple buck deer tags and multiple doe tags for deer and antelope. There aren't many places, if any, that a NR or even a resident has that kind of opportunity and that's what my "spoiled" comment was referring to. I feel all of us know that changes need to be made in how the G&Fs are funded, but I don't know how that political battle will ever be won since it would be such a huge change. After all, hunters are in the minority and whoa be it if the bird watchers, hikers, bikers, etc. had to pitch in a few pennies a piece to help enjoy what we have always paid for through our fees and excise taxes on sporting equipment!
 
>ICMDEER: "It will always amaze me
>that that antelope have been
>100% limited quota for decades
>and mule deer are still
>hunted like they are in
>big numbers."
>
>***What do you figure the G&F
>reasoning is for that or
>do you even have an
>educated guess? I hope it's
>not strictly the money involved,
>but the more I listen
>to some of the residents
>that are disgruntled about the
>mule deer situation it sure
>makes me wonder!


I believe it is two things,1) money and 2) the belief, in some areas, that the number killed by hunters does not adversely affect the overall population.
1)The G&F absolutely manages some units and areas to generate revenue. They are not bashful about saying it either. I happen to agree with their thinking on this in some situations. Take deer unit 100. It is a general tag and the numbers have been dropping consistently. I heard it directly from the G&F rep several years ago when he was asked to consider making it a LQ area that they used that area to generate revenue from many residents of Rock Springs that otherwise would not buy a tag. Quite a few people either don't want to put much effort into a hunt or just don't have time and all they want is to drive out to the desert for a evening or day and see if they can knock down any old deer. By making unit 100 general they are filling this niche. If that unit was LQ many hunters would not even bother buying a tag. Additionally, they stated that having a general area like 100 limits that number of people in G and H and to some degree satisfies those hunters that consistently complain about seeing too many other hunters.

2) Many in the G&F believe that the herds in western Wyoming are limited by so many other factors like winter range, summer range, competition from elk, 4 legged predators, etc that the amount killed by humans is not the limiting factor. They will use winter kill as the proof of this. If winter kill is taking prime age bucks and does and not just the old and newly born then in theory it just meant that hunters did not kill enough the previous fall. There is a great deal of logic behind this thought as well.

I can only speak to the western side of the state and not to other areas but I happen to agree with the logic in both cases. I think the G&F has to consider sources of money as well as other factors when they plan. Since raising license fees is met with such resistance the money they think they need has to come from somewhere. They get tremendous demands placed on them and are consistently hit from all sides. They are far from perfect and sure they have room to cut but I think ultimately they have the best interest of the herds in mind. When people mention that they only manage to money it almost sounds like they think the G&F employees get to keep the leftover at the end of the year. The money they are requesting is going to projects to improve hunting and fishing quantity and quality in Wyoming, for the most part, not to line some ones pockets. Just my 2 cents.
 
>>ICMDEER: "It will always amaze me
>>that that antelope have been
>>100% limited quota for decades
>>and mule deer are still
>>hunted like they are in
>>big numbers."
>>
>>***What do you figure the G&F
>>reasoning is for that or
>>do you even have an
>>educated guess? I hope it's
>>not strictly the money involved,
>>but the more I listen
>>to some of the residents
>>that are disgruntled about the
>>mule deer situation it sure
>>makes me wonder!
>
>
>I believe it is two things,1)
>money and 2) the belief,
>in some areas, that the
>number killed by hunters does
>not adversely affect the overall
>population.
>1)The G&F absolutely manages some units
>and areas to generate revenue.
> They are not bashful
>about saying it either.
>I happen to agree with
>their thinking on this in
>some situations. Take deer
>unit 100. It is
>a general tag and the
>numbers have been dropping consistently.
> I heard it directly
>from the G&F rep several
>years ago when he was
>asked to consider making it
>a LQ area that they
>used that area to generate
>revenue from many residents of
>Rock Springs that otherwise would
>not buy a tag.
>Quite a few people either
>don't want to put much
>effort into a hunt or
>just don't have time and
>all they want is to
>drive out to the desert
>for a evening or day
>and see if they can
>knock down any old deer.
> By making unit 100
>general they are filling this
>niche. If that unit
>was LQ many hunters would
>not even bother buying a
>tag. Additionally, they stated
>that having a general area
>like 100 limits that number
>of people in G and
>H and to some degree
>satisfies those hunters that consistently
>complain about seeing too many
>other hunters.
>
>2) Many in the G&F believe
>that the herds in western
>Wyoming are limited by so
>many other factors like winter
>range, summer range, competition from
>elk, 4 legged predators, etc
>that the amount killed by
>humans is not the limiting
>factor. They will use
>winter kill as the proof
>of this. If winter
>kill is taking prime age
>bucks and does and not
>just the old and newly
>born then in theory it
>just meant that hunters did
>not kill enough the previous
>fall. There is a
>great deal of logic behind
>this thought as well.
>
>I can only speak to the
>western side of the state
>and not to other areas
>but I happen to agree
>with the logic in both
>cases. I think the
>G&F has to consider sources
>of money as well as
>other factors when they plan.
> Since raising license fees
>is met with such resistance
>the money they think they
>need has to come from
>somewhere. They get tremendous
>demands placed on them and
>are consistently hit from all
>sides. They are far
>from perfect and sure they
>have room to cut but
>I think ultimately they have
>the best interest of the
>herds in mind. When
>people mention that they only
>manage to money it almost
>sounds like they think the
>G&F employees get to keep
>the leftover at the end
>of the year. The
>money they are requesting is
>going to projects to improve
>hunting and fishing quantity and
>quality in Wyoming, for the
>most part, not to line
>some ones pockets. Just
>my 2 cents.


***I like your 2 cents worth mulecreek! Your post made a lot of sense to me and if they do it down there they probably have similar areas throughout the state where they use the same philosophy. I also agree with your statements in the last half of your last paragraph---very good post IMHO.
 
Fella's where on earth are ya seeing the 1000 non-ressy Gen elk tag quote at?

What I am reading is 1000 non-ressy elk tags including all the LQ units??

20% would equal out to basically 1-2 NEW LQ tags per non-ressy elk units---pretty much a meaning less increase---

What am I missing on the Elk tag ## allocations?

Robb

PS--personally the elk tag increase is no big deal it is the Deer tag increase that alarms me.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-10-13 AT 07:43PM (MST)[p]>Fella's where on earth are ya
>seeing the 1000 non-ressy Gen
>elk tag quote at?
>
>What I am reading is 1000
>non-ressy elk tags including all
>the LQ units??
>
>20% would equal out to basically
>1-2 NEW LQ tags per
>non-ressy elk units---pretty much a
>meaning less increase---
>
>What am I missing on the
>Elk tag ## allocations?
>
>Robb
>
>PS--personally the elk tag increase is
>no big deal it is
>the Deer tag increase that
>alarms me.


***Robb---The article I posted states 1000 more elk tags than is presently given to NRs and makes no mention as to how they would be divvied up between General and LQ units.
 
Exactly my point,Robb. I don't feel that 1k more elk tags statewide would make a huge difference in hunt quality, especially if they were late season tags or some such thing. Like Feduptwo says, maybe(God forbid) WGF could actually think outside the box for a change. They claim too many elk in many units, and rarely get the harvest they desire. Yet they never try anything different. It's always baby-steps with them.

If WGF was truly concerned about a quality hunting experience, they would figure a way to spread hunters out. I like the idea of a split season like Fedup refers to. I have suggested this in many comments-both oral and written. I don't know why G&F is so abhorrent of new ideas. Many times at the public meetings, new ideas seem to be met with scorn by G&F personnel.

Sorry guys-I'm not an outfitter and never have been! What I am is a seasoned hunter who has seen both good times and bad. And as far as mule deer are concerned in western Wy, we are in a BAD cycle right now, due to a myriad of factors.

Mulecreek-that was an excellent post. You can throw in pretty much all the units around RS/GR with 131 as being "sacrificial lambs" for mulie hunting. I fully understand the trials that G&F is currently undergoing. I also understand that most factors affecting mule deer are not controlled by them. What they can control is hunters-when, how long, and what method we hunt with. They are content with the status quo.

I would also say that "spoiled" is a matter of perspective. Without going any further into this particular subject, it's my opinion that maybe it wouldn't hurt us residents too badly if we actually had to sacrifice a little mulie hunting for the sake of the resource and future generations.
 
Nontypical,

What makes you think WY residents arent sacrificing mule deer hunting?

In the last 6-7 years I've killed 2 mule deer bucks...one of which was a deer with a busted hind leg (shot and lost by another hunter). The other was one I shot on a LQ tag.

Other than that its been tag soup or whitetails.

Thats the beauty of general tags, you have the option to pass up all but a quality mule deer buck...or choose to not even hunt them at all. Plus, I know any time I invest in general areas, I know I can hunt it year after year.

If things go statewide LQ for mule deer and I only draw 1 tag every 5 years...when I draw that tag a deer is going to die. I think thats what 99% of the people that draw LQ tags think as well. Check the harvest stats for 101 and 102...
 
>Fella's where on earth are ya
>seeing the 1000 non-ressy Gen
>elk tag quote at?
>
>What I am reading is 1000
>non-ressy elk tags including all
>the LQ units??
>
>20% would equal out to basically
>1-2 NEW LQ tags per
>non-ressy elk units---pretty much a
>meaning less increase---
>
>What am I missing on the
>Elk tag ## allocations?
>
>Robb
>
>PS--personally the elk tag increase is
>no big deal it is
>the Deer tag increase that
>alarms me.


Your math is not too good. Let's say an area has 150 tags. Increase NR quota from 16 to 20% means SIX less tags for residents in that area, not 1 or 2. In area 7 which has 1750 any tags the residents lose 70 tags. I don't see that as meaningless. I'm sure the extra 1000 is to cover the general area outfitters, since there is a cap of 7250 NR elk tags before leftovers. LQ is drawn first and what's left of the 7250 goes general.

I don't just hunt deer, I hunt elk also and this isn't acceptable. I don't think the G&F will take this on right now as ticking off residents is the last thing they want do these days.

And honestly, killing some more bulls won't solve anything when it come to herd management. It just means lower bull/cow ratios and less opportunity for resident hunters.

Want less elk, figure out how to kill more cows. You won't get anyone arguing about that.
 
So then, what is the answer here?

Let's stop being stingy for just good dialogue for once. And, I can only speak for the western side of the state with my comments. But, can we agree the mule deer are like a turd swirrling in the toilet?? Elk are thriving in the same acreage. If it meant to give up a few elk tags to help the deer there (if that is a possible answer) that is a no brainer. I am talking about general elk units. And, you will never get non resi folk to come buy cow tags if they have to travel to do it.

I don't know what the answer is.....maybe it wouldn't hurt to pick our unit for deer when we buy our over the counter deer tag???

That alone could solve a lot of bull-#####??
 
Sure Jeff, I see your point.

"Your math is not too good. Let's say an area has 150 tags. Increase NR quota from 16 to 20% means SIX less tags for residents in that area, not 1 or 2. In area 7 which has 1750 any tags the residents lose 70 tags. I don't see that as meaningless. I'm sure the extra 1000 is to cover the general area outfitters, since there is a cap of 7250 NR elk tags before leftovers. LQ is drawn first and what's left of the 7250 goes general."

With in certain units with high tag allocations now--- then the 4% increase would add more than 1-2 non-ressy tags...makes sense.

Thanks for the heads-up.

In my home state I am very pro non-ressy mainly because I am a non-ressy in the other 49 states. I try not to waste to much time on the circle jerk ressy vs non-ressy gig--- mostly because it turns into disrespect and some what self serving.

I guess I am more of a sharing than screwing type guy.

Robb
 
>Sure Jeff, I see your point.
>
>>In my home state I am
>very pro non-ressy mainly because
>I am a non-ressy in
>the other 49 states. I
>try not to waste to
>much time on the circle
>jerk ressy vs non-ressy gig---
>mostly because it turns into
>disrespect and some what self
>serving.
>
>I guess I am more of
>a sharing than screwing type
>guy.
>
>Robb


Robb, no other state that I know of is as generous with NR tags as Wyoming. Elk 16%, antelope, deer, moose 20%, and here's the one that really hurts; sheep, mtn goat, bison 25%!!!! In other states the NR is lucky to get 10% of allotted tags for anything.

I don't see that as Wyoming "screwing" NR hunters. However, there is a growing sentiment here that we are too generous, but that's for another discussion.

I wish I had a good idea to help this mule deer problem. I have watched, in the past 10 years, a thriving, well managed herd of muleys dwindle down to a handful. If hunting pressure or habitat is not the problem what is? Elk? Whitetails? CWD? Predators? I don't know for sure and wish I had the answer.

But giving more NR elk tags to shoot bulls is not it.
 
I concur...it seems like no matter how generous Wyoming is with tags, NR's are still wanting more and more.

I think a lot of that comes from the outfitters/WYSFW, as they use any excuse in the book to gain more tags for NR hunters.

Also, when you look at the actual number of elk, deer, and pronghorn tags given to NR's...its way beyond the 16-20% for elk, deer, and antelope when you take into consideration the leftover tags.

For any NR hunter to make a claim that Wyoming is stingy...is ridiculous, unfounded, and in defiance of reality.

I will fight any increase in NR elk tags...in either general or LQ areas.

Enough is enough.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-13 AT 09:32AM (MST)[p]NR' are issued more pronghorn tags than Residents...too bad Wyoming isnt "generous" enough.

20% of pronghorn tags? Try 61%...

STATE TOTAL 73,859
RESIDENT 29,045
NONRESIDENT 44,814
 
20% of deer tags????

Wrong, try 33%...

STATE TOTAL 79,655
RESIDENT 53,720
NONRESIDENT 25,935
 
16% of elk tags???

Wrong again...actually 17.5%

STATE TOTAL 69,110
RESIDENT 57,089
NONRESIDENT 12,021

Yep...Wyoming is stingy.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-13 AT 09:37AM (MST)[p]If my math is correct...37% of the total deer, elk, and pronghorn tags are issued to NR hunters.

Darn near 4 of every 10 tags.

NR's still think they need more and claim WY is stingy?

I dont think so...and I'll not be entertaining any more NR tag increases.
 
As a NR that comes to Wyoming every other year, I agree with you guys. There is more opportunity to hunt Wyoming for me than any other state. What the real deal is is the money. If that does not get figured out soon, the lobbyist for more NR tags (Outfitters) will win with the legislature and Wyoming will become "Little Utah". That will be a sad day.

DZ
 
I did not know that many tags went to NR. That is wild on the antelope numbers. Point taken.

That is a heck of a lot of NR revenue as well. Maybe it is time for a resident increase if that much revenue is still not enough. Wish is was an easy answer.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-13 AT 10:48AM (MST)[p]

NR got that many Antelope tags because the residents didn't want 'em.

I'm not seeing NR complaining about not enough tags. NR aren't pushing for 1000 Elk tags, that's coming from WY residents themselves. "The Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association has three ideas..."
 
The outfitters would push it. They have very slim services with residents, maybe a resident sheep hunter here and there.
The outfitters are for the NR's I know the upper north west part of the state cant afford more elk tags. with the wolves with a huge impact on the elk. And now they want to reduce wolf tags, so they will only hurt the elk herds more.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-13 AT 10:59AM (MST)[p]How does that change the facts about the number of tags NR receieve?

Also, I'm pretty sure theres quite a few NR outfitters operating in Wyoming.

Just sayin'...
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-13 AT 11:41AM (MST)[p]
>
>How does that change the facts
>about the number of tags
>NR receieve?
>
>Also, I'm pretty sure theres quite
>a few NR outfitters operating
>in Wyoming.
>
>Just sayin'...


The number is meaningless because we're picking up what residents don't want. If residents want their full percentage, buy the tags. If they did, there wouldn't be any leftovers and NR would be at their allotted quota.
No different than NM guys complaining about NR getting more Elk tags. Buy the tags that are available ...

NR didn't make the proposal to the Game dept.

If there is a go to state for most every species it's Wyoming. Not sure why anybody would think NR need more tags. The 1000 Elk tags doesn't make sense, a GEN tag is 100% for a 2nd choice NR. 6 Antelope and 6 Deer is crazy, let alone 3 Elk tags.
 
Jm77-When I said I was in favor of 1K more elk tags, what I was thinking was for res and nonres both. I didn't specify that in my post(my apologies). Any raises in tag numbers should be for both res and nonres in accordance with the formula already established by the state. As I said before, I am of the opinion(and this opinion is backed by many western big-game biologists) that the growth in elk herds over the past 3 decades is a contributing factor to the decline of mule deer over the same time span. When I saw the proposal for an increase in elk tags, I agreed based on the harvest stats statewide for elk -meaning that would translate to 400+ more dead elk every year. Maybe this would help mule deer numbers to come back. WGF seem to always be publicizing the fact that they never get the desired elk harvest in western Wy, and though they have liberalized seasons over the past decade, it never seems to be enough to achieve the harvest they want. BTW, I'm not hiding my profile. I don't know why it doesn't show on there anymore, but I didn't remove it. Most people here know who I am, and I'm not trying to hide from anyone.

BUZZ-I would agree that many residents are picky when it comes to taking a buck-myself included. That's not really my concern as much as the overall decline of mule deer in the west. G&F guys will constantly tell you that you can't "stockpile" bucks, and to an extent that's true. You can increase age class by using specific management techniques in unique situations, however, such as APR's when b/d ratios get too low(that's another subject). The reality is that hunting doesn't have much affect on herd growth in most cases. Basically, it's my feeling that a hunter should be able to legally kill whatever animal their license entitles them to kill. If we had the deer numbers of the late '80's and early '90's, I wouldn't be typing this. But we don't, and that's why I feel the need for different management strategies. I would disagree with your assumption that statewide LQ for deer would mean only hunting every 5 yrs for mulies. I feel there are a ton of different strategies out there that would work here. That being said, I would promote other possibilities before going LQ. Come on now...Aren't we just a little spoiled here?? ;)
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-13 AT 01:55PM (MST)[p]BuzzH---That's really not fair to put those big numbers up on the board when you, of all people, know that's because the NRs are buying tags the residents don't want, just as WB stated. If the residents don't buy them and they then go to the NRs in the draw and as leftovers, it's not the NRs fault. You know all that's doing is putting more money in to support the G&F budget and that's why it's set up that way. You and I have continually stated that the NRs are supporting the G&F way too much compared to resident hunters, so the system needs to change with a good fee increase or there should be no bitching on the part of any resident. I was suprised to read your numerous posts in a row to get a point across that really is meaningless when it's no fault of the NR. I have no idea how the Association decides what they want to offer up and whether it's by majority vote or strictly made by a few board members. I also have no idea how many outfitters are NRs, but you can bet your butt that they are a minority, so even if they all voted for or against something they wouldn't have the numbers to carry a motion. Therefore, let's just blame things on the entire group and not start nitpicking at the NRs in that group too. It's up to you guys as residents to convince the Legislature and the G&F to change the way they do business and quit blaming a lot of the problems out there on NRs. I, for one, have only shot two good bucks and one dry doe in the last seven seasons, so not all of us are raping the state of it's wildlife either! End of rant!!!
 
Topgun,

Did I not say in my first post..."When you take into consideration the leftover list"???

The numbers are what they are...no matter the reason. That information is an important part of the discussion when NR's start crying about not getting enough tags in Wyoming.

From the sounds of the responses...not many were aware of the actual numbers.

I'll point out facts every time...trumps the BS.
 
>Topgun,
>
>Did I not say in my
>first post..."When you take into
>consideration the leftover list"???
>
>The numbers are what they are...no
>matter the reason. That information
>is an important part of
>the discussion when NR's start
>crying about not getting enough
>tags in Wyoming.
>
>From the sounds of the responses...not
>many were aware of the
>actual numbers.
>
>I'll point out facts every time...trumps
>the BS.



***Yes you did, and with the reason you just stated I now understand where you're coming from. However, where have you guys been hearing the complaints from NRs that Wyoming doesn't issue enough NR tags? I don't believe I've heard that statement from any NR on this Forum and if I did, even as an NR myself, I would set them straight real quick! There is no other western state where I can get deer, antelope, and elk tags every year if I want them and especially multiple tags for all three species. The elk tag might have to be a cow tag, but that's fine with me. If cow tags weren't so expensive for NRs, I would wager a bet that a lot more of them would be sold, but they are a lot higher than the buck deer and antelope. Therefore, a lot of people just will not buy them. Wyoming, if anything, is giving out so many tags it's almost ridiculous, but that's 80% of the G&F budget and in a way I have to agree with some people that say they are money driven to some extent. However, they are cutting tags where they have to because of the drought and decreasing animal numbers, so in that vein you can argue that they're not.
 
"The numbers are what they are...no matter the reason. That information is an important part of the discussion when NR's start crying about not getting enough tags in Wyoming."

If a NR is complaining about not getting enough tags in WY, they're full of ####. Currently, a NR can get a GEN Elk tag by simply choosing that option on their app. The dept issued over 700 of them in the supplemental draw to make up the total NR allotment for 2013.
 
It seems the general consensus about the outfitter proposal is negative. I don't hear the NRs screaming for more tags. But Buzz made a HUGE point about outfitters; they don't pay their own way when it comes to supporting the resourse! A little background is in order...

Outfitters used to pay the G&F for their licenses. Woga(or whoever it was then) came up with a plan to form their own association(with lobbyists of course) and all outfitter and guide license fees go to WOGA and they 'police' themselves and the G&F is off the hook. This brings us back to funding the Dept for the resource.(which WOGA does not help do)

Maybe it's time that change. For so many to make money off of hunting and not give back is just wrong. Those clients bring a lot of money to the state and only their license fees go to G&F.

I don't say this lightly, I have friends who outfit, but most of them think WOGA is a joke!
 
JM77---That is news to me, as I had no idea the members weren't paying fees to the G&F. If that is the case how can G&F remove a license if a member is found committing illegal activities like poaching, using landowners tags illegally for NRs like happened in TenSleep, etc.? Does the G&F have any control over them or do they just administer the law that requires NRs to have a guide in wilderness areas?
 
Would a outfitter be regulated by the forest service ? But the forest service works with outfitters such as let them put corrals up and tie to live tress with horses to where as if I did that I would get a ticket.
 
>JM77---That is news to me, as
>I had no idea the
>members weren't paying fees to
>the G&F. If that
>is the case how can
>G&F remove a license if
>a member is found committing
>illegal activities like poaching, using
>landowners tags illegally for NRs
>like happened in TenSleep, etc.?
> Does the G&F have
>any control over them or
>do they just administer the
>law that requires NRs to
>have a guide in wilderness
>areas?


The outfitter board polices itself. It has investigators that mostly look into illegal outfitters, but they are supposed to yank licenses from bad outfitters. Outfitter board CANNOT enforce any laws or regulations. If investigators find evidence of pirate outfitting or NR hunting in wilderness, they can turn it over to G&F.

As far as outfitters hunting Forest Service, BLM, or state lands, they have to get area authorization, which they pay for. None of that money goes to G&F.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-12-13 AT 07:14AM (MST)[p]JM77---Thanks for the info.! I was aware that they have to be permitted to outfit on the NFs and BLM land, but if they are self policing it's no wonder the comment was made that the Association is a joke!
 
On my last outfitted hunt in the Thorofare a few years ago, one of their investigators showed up. He went through the camp and checked everything over including the outfitters paperwork. He then asked questions about possible illegal outfitter activity in the area. I thought the guy was professional and he definitely had some big ol' cojones. He was camped a couple drainages over solo in the middle of grizz country. Not many guys could do that...
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-12-13 AT 10:54AM (MST)[p]He was camped a couple drainages over solo in the middle of grizz country. Not many guys could do that...


Maybe not many of the guys you know...

As far as outfitters "policing" themselves, thats akin to a fox guarding a hen house.
 
>Maybe not many of the guys
>you know...


Oh yah! Well my dad could beat up your dad.

>As far as outfitters "policing" themselves,
>thats akin to a fox
>guarding a hen house.

This may well be true but I am not sure a government agency would be much more effective.
 
I know that this thread has wandered around and on to several different topics over the weeks it has been up, but just imagine that you were a game and fish "official" that had been reading this in the hopes of figuring out just what the hunters and sporstmen of the state wanted to see happen. Could you make any determination as to which direction to go? More licenses? Fewer licenses? Higher fees? Change the percentages? Manage for trophy hunts? Since none of us here can come to a consensus as to which is the best way to manage the animals, control the access, and determine the right ratio of licenses and set the fees just right, I am not certain how we can expect the game and fish department to do much better. Just a thought from my observations on the comments in this thread. I have enjoyed the many different perspectives and thoughts on the matter.
 
This may well be true but I am not sure a government agency would be much more effective.

Who TF said it had to be a government agency?

The lack of "thinking" that goes into some of these discussions truly is amazing.

How about a panel consisting of an outfitter, a game and fish person, a FS or BLM person (if on NF or BLM permits) and perhaps a hunter that is up to speed on the regulations regarding outfitters???

Giving complete control to WOGA is a fuggin' policy joke from the start.
 
>This may well be true but
>I am not sure a
>government agency would be much
>more effective.
>
>Who TF said it had to
>be a government agency?
>
>The lack of "thinking" that goes
>into some of these discussions
>truly is amazing.
>
>How about a panel consisting of
>an outfitter, a game and
>fish person, a FS or
>BLM person (if on NF
>or BLM permits) and perhaps
>a hunter that is up
>to speed on the regulations
>regarding outfitters???
>
>Giving complete control to WOGA is
>a fuggin' policy joke from
>the start.


Fine make it your panel. Isn't this almost exactly what exists today. It may be the WYOGA that make the final decision on the outfitters license but the problems are still investigated by the G&F if applicable, BLM or FS if applicable and the WYOGA. The only part missing is the hunter. And I highly doubt that you would agree with this "hunter" 100% of the time unless it was you. If the FS finds a problem with an outfitter do you honestly think all they do is turn it over to the WYOGA and then walk away regardless of the outcome of their decision? Same goes for the G&F. If the G&F has solid evidence of illegal activity by an outfitter but the WYOGA does nothing about it do you honestly think they just say "well maybe next time".

Whether its a panel of multiple groups, a government agency or a panel of members of the Association they are still people that will make decisions you don't always think are correct. Just because you or I disagree does not make it wrong.
 
Mulecreek,

For starters, no, its not what exists today. What exists today is that any complaints filed by a client are sent to WOGA. WOGA does the "investigation".

Heres the problem...what good does it do for a client to file a complaint with WOGA? Who do you suppose WOGA is going to believe in any case that isnt a clear violation of statuate, law, or regulation? The client that makes the complaint...or a dues paying member of their Association? Yeah...let me think about that answer for 1/10th of a second.

Just because an outfitter doesnt do anything illegal...sure as hell doesnt mean they arent ripping off their clients, acting unprofessionally, etc. Thats EXACTLY the reason that POS outfitters operate for years...even decades...before they're out of business. Fools and their money are easily parted, and OGA's "policying" their own allow that to continue.

The outfitting industry has a piss poor track record of policing their own...and anything would be an improvement over what we have now.

Further, if I were in the outfitting industry, I'd want any perception of inpropriety like self-policing gone.

It would be a great deal for the legitimate outfitters and flush the turds out of the business, as well as protect clients from getting ripped off.

Sorry, but I dont put much faith in any organization policing itself...never works.
 

Similar threads

SDBugler
Elk Draw Questions
Replies
34
Views
2k
ClearCreek
C
L
Elk antler poacher fined, loses hunting privileges for 3 years
Replies
19
Views
1k
Vanilla
Vanilla
Simpleton
Mule Deer Proposal
2 3
Replies
218
Views
5k
Vanilla
Vanilla

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

F5CAAEB5-300B-4151-907A-5902232771D8.jpeg
8D0C994F-667B-4663-9149-855A97B69B3E.jpeg
4714BAAC-BD79-49A6-B480-95467413F9D8.jpeg
Some 2023 Fuzzy Stuff
76779554-1624-41C3-9EDC-814456295559.jpeg
bull.jpg
20141127_131824-1.jpg
VideoCapture_20211113-091616.jpg
1.jpg
20190831_064104.jpg
686A76BD-DD41-41F9-8281-987AA251ACD8.jpeg
img288 (1).jpg

Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Badger Creek Outfitters

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

Urge 2 Hunt

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

J & J Outfitters

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


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses
Back
Top Bottom