I know there has been posts regarding the G&F budget troubles. Just another FYI article . .
http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1001371.aspx
http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1001371.aspx
Budget Cuts
- Thread starter HiMtnHntr
- Start date
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,436
To be perfectly honest about this avenue of revenue cutting---
I myself would have been A-Okay with just paying another Franklin on a drawn tag...across the board on all species.
Or even to have to spend a Franklin to buy a Hunting License just to apply--for a tag ---or just for a point.
I hate to see all the loss and the folks/family's that are going to be out income.
Sad deal for sure.
Robb
I myself would have been A-Okay with just paying another Franklin on a drawn tag...across the board on all species.
Or even to have to spend a Franklin to buy a Hunting License just to apply--for a tag ---or just for a point.
I hate to see all the loss and the folks/family's that are going to be out income.
Sad deal for sure.
Robb
"Janitorial services and landscape maintenance for regional offices - $31,000 reduction
Janitorial and landscape maintenance services for regional offices that were contracted to private individuals in the local communities will now be completed by department employees, diverting time away from other wildlife management or public service activities."
***Looks like the Wardens and Biologists will be cutting the grass and trimming bushes now, instead of using their college degrees as intended. Maybe Bob will use all his clout and decide this one will result in too much pain for the public to endure and will put a stop to it!
Janitorial and landscape maintenance services for regional offices that were contracted to private individuals in the local communities will now be completed by department employees, diverting time away from other wildlife management or public service activities."
***Looks like the Wardens and Biologists will be cutting the grass and trimming bushes now, instead of using their college degrees as intended. Maybe Bob will use all his clout and decide this one will result in too much pain for the public to endure and will put a stop to it!
>To be perfectly honest about this
>avenue of revenue cutting---
>
>I myself would have been A-Okay
>with just paying another Franklin
>on a drawn tag...across the
>board on all species.
>
>Or even to have to spend
>a Franklin to buy a
>Hunting License just to apply--for
>a tag ---or just for
>a point.
>
>I hate to see all the
>loss and the folks/family's that
>are going to be out
>income.
>
>Sad deal for sure.
>
>Robb
Yep, and a whole lot simpler.
>avenue of revenue cutting---
>
>I myself would have been A-Okay
>with just paying another Franklin
>on a drawn tag...across the
>board on all species.
>
>Or even to have to spend
>a Franklin to buy a
>Hunting License just to apply--for
>a tag ---or just for
>a point.
>
>I hate to see all the
>loss and the folks/family's that
>are going to be out
>income.
>
>Sad deal for sure.
>
>Robb
Yep, and a whole lot simpler.
nfh
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,665
Who is the Game and fish funded by?
like I know Yellowstone park is funded by the government and all money made at the gate entrance goes back to D.C and is wasted.
so is the game and fish funded by the state and their profits are given to the state or are they funding themselves.
like I know Yellowstone park is funded by the government and all money made at the gate entrance goes back to D.C and is wasted.
so is the game and fish funded by the state and their profits are given to the state or are they funding themselves.
It seems like the proposed raises were way more than needed. Not to much on the conspiracy but it seems like there could be some folks out there that didn't want any legislation to pass, so the G&F would be in trouble. Maybe a new plan will emerge to sell off a few more tags to the highest bidder and raise lots of $. If there would have been a legislation this year to raise $s needed across the board, maybe a percentage increase on everything. I think it would have had a lot more support.
DZ
DZ
jdubya
Member
- Messages
- 15
I too am disappointed to see the budget cuts. To help keep our critters around, I concur in Robb's willingness to pay a little extra.
Where else in the continental 48 can you get the number of tags for the number of different species over the counter for the price we do in Wyoming?
Where else in the continental 48 can you get the number of tags for the number of different species over the counter for the price we do in Wyoming?
Raising taxes, license fees, whatever is not a for sure way to raise more total money, especially on discressionary stuff like nonresident license fees in a bad economy. Bad deal, but there is no easy fix. Cutting back is going to be a fact of life for all government agencies. The only real fix is an improved economy that has more spending and income, more revenue generation not higher taxes and fees. That is totally out of fish and game department realm...
elkantlers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,728
I wouldn't mind paying a little more to hunt Wyoming but what they were asking for was way too much. You look at all the cuts that are going to be made and very few affect how much wildlife there is. Which means if we had to pay more for licenses we wouldn't have any more animals than we do now.
delmag1942
Active Member
- Messages
- 806
I will preface my comment by saying that Wyoming is my favorite hunting destination and hope to one day relocate there.
That being said, I am with Robb in the fact that I would pay more as a NR. However the proposed increases would have undoubtedly eliminated many NR from the draws in Wyoming. It has happened in a couple states already.
The fact to keep in mind is that (IF IT WOULD HAPPEN) a resident of Wyoming applied AND DREW a sheep, moose, mountain goat, bison, elk, deer, and antelope they would be out a whopping $906!!!!
Conversely, a non resident in the same situation would have a $10633 tab!
The point of the story in my opinion, is that any serious revenue generation is going to have to be shouldered by raising resident tag fees.
That being said, I am with Robb in the fact that I would pay more as a NR. However the proposed increases would have undoubtedly eliminated many NR from the draws in Wyoming. It has happened in a couple states already.
The fact to keep in mind is that (IF IT WOULD HAPPEN) a resident of Wyoming applied AND DREW a sheep, moose, mountain goat, bison, elk, deer, and antelope they would be out a whopping $906!!!!
Conversely, a non resident in the same situation would have a $10633 tab!
The point of the story in my opinion, is that any serious revenue generation is going to have to be shouldered by raising resident tag fees.
LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-13 AT 06:57AM (MST)[p]>Who is the Game and fish
>funded by?
>
> like I know Yellowstone park
>is funded by the government
>and all money made at
>the gate entrance goes back
>to D.C and is wasted.
>
>
>so is the game and fish
>funded by the state and
>their profits are given to
>the state or are they
>funding themselves.
***FYI---The Wyoming Game and Fish Department receives 60% of its funding from sportsmen and sportswomen through license fees and 20% from excise taxes on sporting good purchases (Pittman-Robertson funds), 15% from external grants, and 5% through the state?s general fund.
The sad part of that 60% figure on license sales is that approximately 80% of that has always come from nonresidents. Obviously you can't continue raising those fees forever without corresponding increases from residents or other avenues because eventually the well will run dry. As of this time the well is about as dry as the drought the state is experiencing in many areas! It would appear that the G&F is going to end up doing wholesale cuts until people start suffering the consequences whether SFW and Bob Wharff will admit it or not. Just some of the initial cuts listed for 2013-14 will impact peoples lives, as you can see from the details in the OP link. We have discussed this in ohter threads and the conscensus is that there will have to be other ways to fund the G&F besides the traditional ways everyone is used to. That could be a percentage tacked on to motel room fees, gas fees, restaurant food sales, energy, or a combination of things whereby everyone will share in the burden, rather than just those who hunt and fish.
>funded by?
>
> like I know Yellowstone park
>is funded by the government
>and all money made at
>the gate entrance goes back
>to D.C and is wasted.
>
>
>so is the game and fish
>funded by the state and
>their profits are given to
>the state or are they
>funding themselves.
***FYI---The Wyoming Game and Fish Department receives 60% of its funding from sportsmen and sportswomen through license fees and 20% from excise taxes on sporting good purchases (Pittman-Robertson funds), 15% from external grants, and 5% through the state?s general fund.
The sad part of that 60% figure on license sales is that approximately 80% of that has always come from nonresidents. Obviously you can't continue raising those fees forever without corresponding increases from residents or other avenues because eventually the well will run dry. As of this time the well is about as dry as the drought the state is experiencing in many areas! It would appear that the G&F is going to end up doing wholesale cuts until people start suffering the consequences whether SFW and Bob Wharff will admit it or not. Just some of the initial cuts listed for 2013-14 will impact peoples lives, as you can see from the details in the OP link. We have discussed this in ohter threads and the conscensus is that there will have to be other ways to fund the G&F besides the traditional ways everyone is used to. That could be a percentage tacked on to motel room fees, gas fees, restaurant food sales, energy, or a combination of things whereby everyone will share in the burden, rather than just those who hunt and fish.
nfh
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,665
>
>FYI---The Wyoming Game and Fish Department
>receives 60% of its funding
>from sportsmen and sportswomen through
>license fees and 20% from
>excise taxes on sporting good
>purchases, 15% from external grants,
>and 5% through the state?s
>general fund.
Thanks for the info Topgun
>FYI---The Wyoming Game and Fish Department
>receives 60% of its funding
>from sportsmen and sportswomen through
>license fees and 20% from
>excise taxes on sporting good
>purchases, 15% from external grants,
>and 5% through the state?s
>general fund.
Thanks for the info Topgun
It appears the commission is going to try to pinch it out of sportsman one way or the other. Maybe now some changes to fees, etc . . . will get more consideration. I believe there are a lot of creative ways the G&F might be able to make more money. I don't believe sticking all of it to the nonresident is a good idea. I say this as a resident. . .
The cuts on the list are pretty significant. The fact that the G&F will not be acquiring any new pubic access in the way of HMA and WIA is sad. Those programs are good and provide tons of access. More of those properties will go to outfitters. Of the 7 critters taken by my wife and I last year, 4 were taken on G&F public access land and we also had two good hunts on other ranches where no animals were taken. I suppose looking forward to more access in the near future is not realistic . . .
The cuts on the list are pretty significant. The fact that the G&F will not be acquiring any new pubic access in the way of HMA and WIA is sad. Those programs are good and provide tons of access. More of those properties will go to outfitters. Of the 7 critters taken by my wife and I last year, 4 were taken on G&F public access land and we also had two good hunts on other ranches where no animals were taken. I suppose looking forward to more access in the near future is not realistic . . .
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
I believe elkantlers hit the nail on the head.
The G&F Department is putting too much time, energy & money towards programs that have little if anything to do with hunting, fishing or trapping.
Meanwhile we see mule deer and antelope licenses declining in sales. These two species use to be the bread & butter for the G&F. They were willing to cut license sales by 15%, raise fees and continue doing business as usual. Maybe someone will now start looking at the production problems instead of kicking the can down the road.
At the last G&F Commission meeting it was said that the coveted and highly sought after, award winning magazine was losing $4 million a year. They decided to only produce 6 issues a year. One of the new Commissioners asked about leaving it at 12 issues/year but doubling the fees. The Department was quick to proclaim that doubling the fees would be too much and people would not buy or renew their subscriptions. I thought that was ironic as it appeared few, if any within the G&F Department ever considered that doubling some fees would be too much for hunters, even after they were informed about what was happening in Idaho & Montana.
TOPGUN,
You do know that the G&F Department has more than just biologists & game wardens working for it, right? I doubt it will be the biologists & game wardens mowing the lawns at regional offices.
I believe Representative Norine Kasperik (R-Campbell) said it best in her commnets and rebuttal to Senator Bruce Burns (R-Sheridan) comments he provided to the G&F Commission the day before the adjourned. She said that although there were many new legislators, the reason the license fee bills were defeated was because every other state agency was being told to cut their budgets. The Department of Transportation and the G&F Department are the only two agencies which have independent budgets and both of those Departments sought increased funding.
Cuts might be painful but in the long run, I am sure it will be for the best. Every now and again, the growth of governement needs to be checked against the desires of the public which bares the burden of the government upon their backs. We are experiencing the same thing in Washington, DC as well. You cannot expect people to continually throw money down the hole and not question what they are getting in return; unless of course they are throwing someone elses money down the hole.
The G&F Department is putting too much time, energy & money towards programs that have little if anything to do with hunting, fishing or trapping.
Meanwhile we see mule deer and antelope licenses declining in sales. These two species use to be the bread & butter for the G&F. They were willing to cut license sales by 15%, raise fees and continue doing business as usual. Maybe someone will now start looking at the production problems instead of kicking the can down the road.
At the last G&F Commission meeting it was said that the coveted and highly sought after, award winning magazine was losing $4 million a year. They decided to only produce 6 issues a year. One of the new Commissioners asked about leaving it at 12 issues/year but doubling the fees. The Department was quick to proclaim that doubling the fees would be too much and people would not buy or renew their subscriptions. I thought that was ironic as it appeared few, if any within the G&F Department ever considered that doubling some fees would be too much for hunters, even after they were informed about what was happening in Idaho & Montana.
TOPGUN,
You do know that the G&F Department has more than just biologists & game wardens working for it, right? I doubt it will be the biologists & game wardens mowing the lawns at regional offices.
I believe Representative Norine Kasperik (R-Campbell) said it best in her commnets and rebuttal to Senator Bruce Burns (R-Sheridan) comments he provided to the G&F Commission the day before the adjourned. She said that although there were many new legislators, the reason the license fee bills were defeated was because every other state agency was being told to cut their budgets. The Department of Transportation and the G&F Department are the only two agencies which have independent budgets and both of those Departments sought increased funding.
Cuts might be painful but in the long run, I am sure it will be for the best. Every now and again, the growth of governement needs to be checked against the desires of the public which bares the burden of the government upon their backs. We are experiencing the same thing in Washington, DC as well. You cannot expect people to continually throw money down the hole and not question what they are getting in return; unless of course they are throwing someone elses money down the hole.
Zeke
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,604
I hope the belt-tightening isn't a long term issue and I really don't think it will be. We've all done it and lived through it! The G&F can do it and I suspect all the deer and elk won't die off this year!
There needs to be a more balanced approach IMHO. The nonres guys shouldn't foot the whole bill but the res shouldn't see huge increases either.
If we all pay a bit more AND the G&F cut some waste then the whole thing can be back on track in a blink.
I know, this makes too much sense to work!
Zeke
There needs to be a more balanced approach IMHO. The nonres guys shouldn't foot the whole bill but the res shouldn't see huge increases either.
If we all pay a bit more AND the G&F cut some waste then the whole thing can be back on track in a blink.
I know, this makes too much sense to work!
Zeke
This is a pay me now or pay later scenario. The G&F hasn't passed along cost increases in years even though costs are going up yearly. This is a long term problem that isn't going to be resolved by cutting a few nickle and dime programs here and there. All the legislature did was put off inevitable price increases until next year or the year after. The paper had a big article today about how fish stocking will be curtailed. The obvious answer there is get rid of the yearly non resident fishing license and go to a daily and then pass along increased costs to both residents and non residents. With hunting, I imagine costs will be passed onto both residents and non residents, but non resi's are gonna take the brunt of this when the time comes...
J
juniper81
Guest
I agree, the G&F should raise license fees appropriately, however they should additionally use a third-party source to cut the pork from the agency.
LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-13 AT 11:51AM (MST)[p]>I believe elkantlers hit the nail
>on the head.
>
>The G&F Department is putting too
>much time, energy & money
>towards programs that have little
>if anything to do with
>hunting, fishing or trapping.
***That may well be the case, but shouldn't the Commissioners that are appointed by the Governor to oversee the Dept. decide the directions it takes? If that doesn't work, then maybe instead of SFW deciding what they think the priorities are, the Legislators will end up going line by line to make the decisions themselves. God forbid that happens, but that's what may be the end result when no money comes in within the next couple years and costs keep going up. By not at least allowing the Bill with minimal resident increases to pass, IMHO the SFW and Legislature are the ones wanting to cause pain, but now we hear the G&F will be doing it and be watched closely as they attempt to keep the ship afloat.
>Meanwhile we see mule deer and
>antelope licenses declining in sales.
>These two species use to
>be the bread & butter
>for the G&F. They
>were willing to cut license
>sales by 15%, raise fees
>and continue doing business as
>usual. Maybe someone will
>now start looking at the
>production problems instead of kicking
>the can down the road.
***That is exactly what happens when a program is set up with a budget relying on license fees, specifically nonresident license fees to keep it running! When the game numbers suffer for whatever reasons, the fees either go up for the remaining licenses or another funding mechanism must kick in. There is no other funding mechanism in place BOB! If you can tell the G&F how to end the drought, as well as manage all the private land along with the BLM, NFS, and National Grasslands that they have no jurisdiction over, please do so. As a biologist you should be ashamed to make that last statement, but I guess that came from your lobbyist and Ex. Dir. hat, rather than someone who should know all the intricacies of what's going on throughout the west right now, especially regarding mule deer!
>At the last G&F Commission meeting
>it was said that the
>coveted and highly sought after,
>award winning magazine was losing
>$4 million a year.
>They decided to only produce
>6 issues a year.
>One of the new Commissioners
>asked about leaving it at
>12 issues/year but doubling the
>fees. The Department was
>quick to proclaim that doubling
>the fees would be too
>much and people would not
>buy or renew their subscriptions.
> I thought that was
>ironic as it appeared few,
>if any within the G&F
>Department ever considered that doubling
>some fees would be too
>much for hunters, even after
>they were informed about what
>was happening in Idaho &
>Montana.
***Now you're comparing apples to oranges! I've been getting both the magazine and newspaper for years and if the magazine is losing that kind of money then it should either be cut to six issues a year, entirely scrapped, or completely privitized such that it either sinks or swims on it's own with no G&F oversight. Seeing where all the letters to the editor come from in it, my guess is that it's mostly older people on fixed incomes, as well as nature lovers and others who don't even hunt or fish that support it. Thta is probably why the statement was made by the G&F that raising the rates wouldnt fly! I know I would not renew if they did that and I can afford an increase with no problem. I've wondered many times why G&F puts it out when they also have a very informative bimonthly newspaper that more than fills the need of the Department and covers a lot of the same stuff. Maybe they should do as I mentioned and scrap the magazine and just publish the newspaper.
>
>TOPGUN,
>
>You do know that the G&F
>Department has more than just
>biologists & game wardens working
>for it, right? I
>doubt it will be the
>biologists & game wardens mowing
>the lawns at regional offices.
***Glad to see I didn't piss you off enough that you aren't reading my comments any more! I apologize for calling your posts BS, but sometimes it appears that there has been no thought put into them when many completely contradict each other. Who will cut the grass and trim the bushes at those regional office? I sure wouldn't think the secretary at the front desk would. What other staff are in those offices to do it, since I believe Biologists & Wardens work out of their homes? I would imagine the fisheries staff are there infrequently since they have their own facilities to maintain. Maybe this is one area that you are actually correct in that it's meant to cause pain, since it would seem like a private service has been proven to be the best route to go for janitorial and lawn services over state paid workers throughout the country.
>
>I believe Representative Norine Kasperik (R-Campbell)
>said it best in her
>commnets and rebuttal to Senator
>Bruce Burns (R-Sheridan) comments he
>provided to the G&F Commission
>the day before the adjourned.
> She said that although
>there were many new legislators,
>the reason the license fee
>bills were defeated was because
>every other state agency was
>being told to cut their
>budgets. The Department of
>Transportation and the G&F Department
>are the only two agencies
>which have independent budgets and
>both of those Departments sought
>increased funding.
***I guess I fail to follow you on this one because the G&F has cut their budget the last two years under orders from the Governor. Now they have even less deer and antelope licenses to sell due to game animal numbers decreasing because of weather and many other factors,so with that being their principal income generator what else do you figure they would do? Last week when I was sick and feeling ornery I would have just called this one BS!!!
>
>Cuts might be painful but in
>the long run, I am
>sure it will be for
>the best. Every now
>and again, the growth of
>governement needs to be checked
>against the desires of the
>public which bares the burden
>of the government upon their
>backs. We are experiencing
>the same thing in Washington,
>DC as well. You
>cannot expect people to continually
>throw money down the hole
>and not question what they
>are getting in return; unless
>of course they are throwing
>someone elses money down the
>hole.
***The best for what or who? Since the G&F presently only gets a max of 6% of the money it operates on from the General Fund, please tell me how the Wyoming taxpayers are being overburdened. It sounds to me and many others living there as well as NRs that would say it's more that they are just cheap bass turds that want something for nothing. They are either going to have to figure out how to increase support of the G&F without overburdening any one segment of the population or the department will be back to where they were decades ago. If that latter ends up being the case youi can kiss game management and the way we have know life in the outdoors goodbye!!!
>on the head.
>
>The G&F Department is putting too
>much time, energy & money
>towards programs that have little
>if anything to do with
>hunting, fishing or trapping.
***That may well be the case, but shouldn't the Commissioners that are appointed by the Governor to oversee the Dept. decide the directions it takes? If that doesn't work, then maybe instead of SFW deciding what they think the priorities are, the Legislators will end up going line by line to make the decisions themselves. God forbid that happens, but that's what may be the end result when no money comes in within the next couple years and costs keep going up. By not at least allowing the Bill with minimal resident increases to pass, IMHO the SFW and Legislature are the ones wanting to cause pain, but now we hear the G&F will be doing it and be watched closely as they attempt to keep the ship afloat.
>Meanwhile we see mule deer and
>antelope licenses declining in sales.
>These two species use to
>be the bread & butter
>for the G&F. They
>were willing to cut license
>sales by 15%, raise fees
>and continue doing business as
>usual. Maybe someone will
>now start looking at the
>production problems instead of kicking
>the can down the road.
***That is exactly what happens when a program is set up with a budget relying on license fees, specifically nonresident license fees to keep it running! When the game numbers suffer for whatever reasons, the fees either go up for the remaining licenses or another funding mechanism must kick in. There is no other funding mechanism in place BOB! If you can tell the G&F how to end the drought, as well as manage all the private land along with the BLM, NFS, and National Grasslands that they have no jurisdiction over, please do so. As a biologist you should be ashamed to make that last statement, but I guess that came from your lobbyist and Ex. Dir. hat, rather than someone who should know all the intricacies of what's going on throughout the west right now, especially regarding mule deer!
>At the last G&F Commission meeting
>it was said that the
>coveted and highly sought after,
>award winning magazine was losing
>$4 million a year.
>They decided to only produce
>6 issues a year.
>One of the new Commissioners
>asked about leaving it at
>12 issues/year but doubling the
>fees. The Department was
>quick to proclaim that doubling
>the fees would be too
>much and people would not
>buy or renew their subscriptions.
> I thought that was
>ironic as it appeared few,
>if any within the G&F
>Department ever considered that doubling
>some fees would be too
>much for hunters, even after
>they were informed about what
>was happening in Idaho &
>Montana.
***Now you're comparing apples to oranges! I've been getting both the magazine and newspaper for years and if the magazine is losing that kind of money then it should either be cut to six issues a year, entirely scrapped, or completely privitized such that it either sinks or swims on it's own with no G&F oversight. Seeing where all the letters to the editor come from in it, my guess is that it's mostly older people on fixed incomes, as well as nature lovers and others who don't even hunt or fish that support it. Thta is probably why the statement was made by the G&F that raising the rates wouldnt fly! I know I would not renew if they did that and I can afford an increase with no problem. I've wondered many times why G&F puts it out when they also have a very informative bimonthly newspaper that more than fills the need of the Department and covers a lot of the same stuff. Maybe they should do as I mentioned and scrap the magazine and just publish the newspaper.
>
>TOPGUN,
>
>You do know that the G&F
>Department has more than just
>biologists & game wardens working
>for it, right? I
>doubt it will be the
>biologists & game wardens mowing
>the lawns at regional offices.
***Glad to see I didn't piss you off enough that you aren't reading my comments any more! I apologize for calling your posts BS, but sometimes it appears that there has been no thought put into them when many completely contradict each other. Who will cut the grass and trim the bushes at those regional office? I sure wouldn't think the secretary at the front desk would. What other staff are in those offices to do it, since I believe Biologists & Wardens work out of their homes? I would imagine the fisheries staff are there infrequently since they have their own facilities to maintain. Maybe this is one area that you are actually correct in that it's meant to cause pain, since it would seem like a private service has been proven to be the best route to go for janitorial and lawn services over state paid workers throughout the country.
>
>I believe Representative Norine Kasperik (R-Campbell)
>said it best in her
>commnets and rebuttal to Senator
>Bruce Burns (R-Sheridan) comments he
>provided to the G&F Commission
>the day before the adjourned.
> She said that although
>there were many new legislators,
>the reason the license fee
>bills were defeated was because
>every other state agency was
>being told to cut their
>budgets. The Department of
>Transportation and the G&F Department
>are the only two agencies
>which have independent budgets and
>both of those Departments sought
>increased funding.
***I guess I fail to follow you on this one because the G&F has cut their budget the last two years under orders from the Governor. Now they have even less deer and antelope licenses to sell due to game animal numbers decreasing because of weather and many other factors,so with that being their principal income generator what else do you figure they would do? Last week when I was sick and feeling ornery I would have just called this one BS!!!
>
>Cuts might be painful but in
>the long run, I am
>sure it will be for
>the best. Every now
>and again, the growth of
>governement needs to be checked
>against the desires of the
>public which bares the burden
>of the government upon their
>backs. We are experiencing
>the same thing in Washington,
>DC as well. You
>cannot expect people to continually
>throw money down the hole
>and not question what they
>are getting in return; unless
>of course they are throwing
>someone elses money down the
>hole.
***The best for what or who? Since the G&F presently only gets a max of 6% of the money it operates on from the General Fund, please tell me how the Wyoming taxpayers are being overburdened. It sounds to me and many others living there as well as NRs that would say it's more that they are just cheap bass turds that want something for nothing. They are either going to have to figure out how to increase support of the G&F without overburdening any one segment of the population or the department will be back to where they were decades ago. If that latter ends up being the case youi can kiss game management and the way we have know life in the outdoors goodbye!!!
LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-13 AT 12:29PM (MST)[p]Triple_BB---IMHO the NRs are taking it in the shorts every time you make a post and now again you say we will take the brunt of it again next time! You want to raise our fees, which are already 10 times what you pay and then you want to cut tags to no more than 10%. NRs should pay more, but more than 10x the resident fee is absolutely ludicrous. How in the haydes can you do all that without a HUGE increase in resident fees if you want to keep throwing the NRs under the bus? As strang and I pointed out a couple weeks ago, the resident fees alone would have to go up 3x to almost 4x what they are now just figuring that NR tag cut alone! It's just simple matehmatics when we pay 80% of the license fees taken in by the G&F now and you want to cut us back to 10% of the tags. You surely will admit that your license fees across the board are ridiculously low and yet when just a few bucks increase is purposed in that one Bill it went up in flames in the Legislature according to Bob! IMHO we all need to get together, both residents and NRs, and form a task force to accomplish what should have been done a decade or two ago. That group should look at alternative funding such as has been discussed on this Forum before regarding an overall tax on energy, gas, motel rooms, restaurant food sales, or a combination of same. If that was to come to fruition, a small increase in any or a combination of those would fund the G&F forever! All our license fees would probably be able to be dropped from what they are now to a reasonable rate, never to increase again if it is done properly. I can't do it alone way back here in MI, but I would certainly get involved as much as possible because I consider Wyoming my second home. I absolutley hate to see her heading the way of MI, because this climate and economy up here really sucks and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy! Please take this post as trying to be constructive and let's all decide to do something positive once and for all instead of just making posts! It would only take one or two residents to get the ball rolling and I'd bet there would be a groundswell of support and help to keep it moving.
elks96
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,802
A couple of things I would think need to be addressed....
First of all stocking of fish. If you want to cut the cost of raising and stocking fish, then cut the number of fish that are kept. In Colorado we are typically allowed 4 trout in lakes and 2 in rivers. With the increased pressure all waters are seeing, this makes good sense. Fewer fish killed, fewer fish needing stocked.
On another point, there are many "livestock" ponds that are stocked every year. Hell around Baggs we have fished in these little ponds and caught fish, but there is no reason they should have been stocked. They are in the middle of nowhere, they have no real potential for expanding the population and without stocking the trout would die off. The only reason they seem to be stocked is to waste money. No matter how you cut it, it must cost a huge amount to take fish into these little no name ponds that are 80 miles from town and have no real business having fish.
When it comes to revenue generation, it is always bad to have a single source of revenue. that source is only as good as the economy. So in this case the primary nearly single source of revenue is licenses. As a result they always seem to hit the nonresidents harder. The prices they were looking out would have put trips out of reach for some. I know this year I was not able to apply due to taxes being higher. If it was the prices proposed earlier, I would not even be able to really think about it.
In all honesty it was mentioned earlier... the only way things are going to get better for the DNR is if things get better for the entire economy!!!
First of all stocking of fish. If you want to cut the cost of raising and stocking fish, then cut the number of fish that are kept. In Colorado we are typically allowed 4 trout in lakes and 2 in rivers. With the increased pressure all waters are seeing, this makes good sense. Fewer fish killed, fewer fish needing stocked.
On another point, there are many "livestock" ponds that are stocked every year. Hell around Baggs we have fished in these little ponds and caught fish, but there is no reason they should have been stocked. They are in the middle of nowhere, they have no real potential for expanding the population and without stocking the trout would die off. The only reason they seem to be stocked is to waste money. No matter how you cut it, it must cost a huge amount to take fish into these little no name ponds that are 80 miles from town and have no real business having fish.
When it comes to revenue generation, it is always bad to have a single source of revenue. that source is only as good as the economy. So in this case the primary nearly single source of revenue is licenses. As a result they always seem to hit the nonresidents harder. The prices they were looking out would have put trips out of reach for some. I know this year I was not able to apply due to taxes being higher. If it was the prices proposed earlier, I would not even be able to really think about it.
In all honesty it was mentioned earlier... the only way things are going to get better for the DNR is if things get better for the entire economy!!!
LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-13 AT 02:42PM (MST)[p]
>You want to raise our
>fees, which are already 10
>times what you pay and
>then you want to cut
>tags to no more than
>10%.
So what's yer point? The majority of hunters in this state probably support this position. And I'd suspect 99% of them don't know or could care less about you or this site. I've pointed out many times before I support increased fee's for everyone. I just shelled out $3900 earlier today for my Colorado moose and mtn goat app's. Point is, if you can't afford it, then don't apply. Hunting out of state isn't a right, its a priviledge.
>You want to raise our
>fees, which are already 10
>times what you pay and
>then you want to cut
>tags to no more than
>10%.
So what's yer point? The majority of hunters in this state probably support this position. And I'd suspect 99% of them don't know or could care less about you or this site. I've pointed out many times before I support increased fee's for everyone. I just shelled out $3900 earlier today for my Colorado moose and mtn goat app's. Point is, if you can't afford it, then don't apply. Hunting out of state isn't a right, its a priviledge.
>LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-13
>AT 02:42?PM (MST)
>
>
>
>>You want to raise our
>>fees, which are already 10
>>times what you pay and
>>then you want to cut
>>tags to no more than
>>10%.
>
>So what's yer point? The
>majority of hunters in this
>state probably support this position.
> And I'd suspect 99%
>of them don't know or
>could care less about you
>or this site. I've
>pointed out many times before
>I support increased fee's for
>everyone. I just shelled
>out $3900 earlier today for
>my Colorado moose and mtn
>goat app's. Point is,
>if you can't afford it,
>then don't apply. Hunting
>out of state isn't a
>right, its a priviledge.
***The majority probably do agree with you, but where is it getting you? My point is even though NRs should pay more it's getting to the point where many can't hunt Wyoming or any other state because of the high fees and you can't rely on us to carry your whole friggin Department on our backs so you can have cheap licenses. Add that 10% suggestion and then tell all those people who agree with you that there deer licesne will have to go to $150-$200 because of NR cuts and see what they say. It appears there wasn't even support for a small increase that one Bill had in it just for residents. That's why Wyoming is at the point they are right now. You and I might be able to shell out $3900 for moose and mountin goat apps, but how many say they can't even afford an antelope hunt if the prices went to what they were projected.
>AT 02:42?PM (MST)
>
>
>
>>You want to raise our
>>fees, which are already 10
>>times what you pay and
>>then you want to cut
>>tags to no more than
>>10%.
>
>So what's yer point? The
>majority of hunters in this
>state probably support this position.
> And I'd suspect 99%
>of them don't know or
>could care less about you
>or this site. I've
>pointed out many times before
>I support increased fee's for
>everyone. I just shelled
>out $3900 earlier today for
>my Colorado moose and mtn
>goat app's. Point is,
>if you can't afford it,
>then don't apply. Hunting
>out of state isn't a
>right, its a priviledge.
***The majority probably do agree with you, but where is it getting you? My point is even though NRs should pay more it's getting to the point where many can't hunt Wyoming or any other state because of the high fees and you can't rely on us to carry your whole friggin Department on our backs so you can have cheap licenses. Add that 10% suggestion and then tell all those people who agree with you that there deer licesne will have to go to $150-$200 because of NR cuts and see what they say. It appears there wasn't even support for a small increase that one Bill had in it just for residents. That's why Wyoming is at the point they are right now. You and I might be able to shell out $3900 for moose and mountin goat apps, but how many say they can't even afford an antelope hunt if the prices went to what they were projected.
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,436
'elkantlers' even though ya hide your profile....
You need to start printing out all the leftover tags each year for the statewide species.
A simple increase in tag fee's or simple hunting license to be purchased would not cut down on all those 1,000's of leftover tags, but would keep many of these proposed lost programs and the families that will be out yearly income from the loss able to feed the family.
Not sure what a guy like you expects when it comes to needing more animals for what??? having a better chance at a harvest?? Hunting is about, well hunting, not shooting.....or am I missing something about hunting?
I may be reading your post backwards? but when Bobbie Boy jumps on 1 of all the post's as his Yeh that is what we want......every one will get screwed......'Historical Perspective'
Robb
You need to start printing out all the leftover tags each year for the statewide species.
A simple increase in tag fee's or simple hunting license to be purchased would not cut down on all those 1,000's of leftover tags, but would keep many of these proposed lost programs and the families that will be out yearly income from the loss able to feed the family.
Not sure what a guy like you expects when it comes to needing more animals for what??? having a better chance at a harvest?? Hunting is about, well hunting, not shooting.....or am I missing something about hunting?
I may be reading your post backwards? but when Bobbie Boy jumps on 1 of all the post's as his Yeh that is what we want......every one will get screwed......'Historical Perspective'
Robb
travishunter3006
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,065
If you really feel like your tag is worth $100 more then why don't you donate money to the Wyo G&F Dept?? Then both sides are satisfied-our being we don't have to take it any harder up the *ss and you guys can rest assured that the lawn cutters keep their jobs.
elkantlers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,728
LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-13 AT 09:31PM (MST)[p]>'elkantlers' even though ya hide your
>profile....
>
>Not sure what a guy like
>you expects when it comes
>to needing more animals for
>what??? having a better chance
>at a harvest?? Hunting is
>about, well hunting, not shooting.....or
>am I missing something about
>hunting?
>
>
>Robb
Come on Robb, Your smarter than that. Of course more animals means more tags which means more revenue to the F&G. 2+2=4
>profile....
>
>Not sure what a guy like
>you expects when it comes
>to needing more animals for
>what??? having a better chance
>at a harvest?? Hunting is
>about, well hunting, not shooting.....or
>am I missing something about
>hunting?
>
>
>Robb
Come on Robb, Your smarter than that. Of course more animals means more tags which means more revenue to the F&G. 2+2=4
PleaseDear
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 10,436
"Come on Robb, Your smarter than that. Of course more animals means more tags which means more revenue to the F&G. 2+2=4"
Agree----with ya, that is why I said to look at the Left Over lists...1000's of them for all 3 species.
Have a Happy Easter wknd all.
Robb
Agree----with ya, that is why I said to look at the Left Over lists...1000's of them for all 3 species.
Have a Happy Easter wknd all.
Robb
Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters
Urge 2 Hunt
We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.
