GF funding, how and who...

BuzzH

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
6,077
So, the funding issue that the GF is facing is not going to go away anytime soon.

There is a need for additional funds, we arent going to streamline the agency any more than it is now without having significant impacts on more programs, employees, etc.

So, the question is where/how to find the additional funds, and who should be providing that additional funding?

I would like ideas from everyone that hunts Wyoming, profits from Wyomings wildlife, etc. I've thought about the issue a lot, but keep hearing some good ideas for both short, and long-term funding. I know that there are more I havent thought of.

It would also be nice if this thread stayed postive, although I understand this a touchy subject and people have strong feelings (rightfully so) on the issue of GF funding.

Lets hear it...
 
I think it is like any other 'budget' that any of us do with our family/income/spending.

It just seems that all of our (pick a state) F&G agencies get lost on simple budget facts.

We have xxx amount coming in and we are spending xxx amount monthly/yearly.

I am way sad about how W G&F is having to deal with this --- I have always believed in them and have tried to help out as much as I can.....

Robb
 
I've felt for a long time that general funding is the best solution. G&F does so much that's not directly tied to consumptive use of wildlife, but license sales make up the bulk of their budget.

Many people live in or visit Wyoming for the wildlife viewing and they don't contribute to the G&F budget. Maintaining healthy habitat is costly and is good for much more than wildlife consumers (hunters and anglers). I'd prefer to have a dedicated sales tax or a part of our mineral trust payments directed toward wildlife.

I'm sure others have ideas but that's my two cents worth for now.
 
Like with any business when financial times are tough you scale back. This might be through reduced services, lay offs, scale back on purchasing, furlongs, or even temporarily reducing employee benefits or raises. Sounds drastic I know but when times are tough this is an alternative which should be on the table. There are areas which can be cut. People will grumble but then they always do even with present services. They will get used to it.

"Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway."
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-14-14 AT 08:49PM (MST)[p]A fraction of a cent per every gallon of fuel sold at the pump in Wyoming like MO has had for a number of years to fund their G&F would be all that is needed and it should last forever. It would cover both resident and nonresident consumptive and nonconsumptive users and wouldn't even be noticed in the overall scheme of things. IMHO doing as suggested in the previous post, especially reducing services that have already been cut back and are being criticized as excessive by many is not going to do anything to relieve the future long term problems the Department is facing.
 
What about doing something along the lines of a license plate. Special plates that have different species on them. Maybe have an annual few of $25.00 dollars that goes directly to G&F. I would buy one!
 
Keep it simple. Increase tag prices across the board. Currently they dont even cover costs to manage these species let alone the non game species. This should apply to residents only.
 
>Keep it simple. Increase tag
>prices across the board.
>Currently they dont even cover
>costs to manage these species
>let alone the non game
>species. This should apply
>to residents only.


The G&F needs a lot more money than any kind of a resident fee increase would ever achieve. I think BuzzH is asking for long term solutions like some of us have already purposed and that would also include money from nonconsumptive users of the outdoors.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-14-14 AT 11:48PM (MST)[p]First, get a consumptive user, outfitters, to step up to the plate and contribute to funding wildlife. Outfitters provide a needed and valuable service, but don't contribute in anyway to G&F coffers. I know many outfitters and some of them are my friends. A simple per hunter fee ($100-200) would add 1- 2 million in revenue. A 'must do' before we seek non-consumptive funding.

Second, after we accomplish the above, 1/2% sales tax to fund the G&F. It would most likely take a referendum and possibly an ugly fight, but I would vote that tax upon myself, which I don't do lightly.

The dept has trimmed itself to the core and there is no more to cut without harming what's left of what we have. We have some time to accomplish this goal, but most likely no more than five years.
 
>>Keep it simple. Increase tag
>>prices across the board.
>>Currently they dont even cover
>>costs to manage these species
>>let alone the non game
>>species. This should apply
>>to residents only.
>
>
>The G&F needs a lot more
>money than any kind of
>a resident fee increase would
>ever achieve. I think
>BuzzH is asking for long
>term solutions like some of
>us have already purposed and
>that would also include money
>from nonconsumptive users of the
>outdoors.


Never forget what happens when someone pays for something through fees or taxes. Representation.
 
How did the lottery turn out this year? Did that help much? Some of the other ideas are a good start, a special plate is a good idea although that is just for residents....I would agree the responsibility to manage wildlife and habitat is not going to get any easier or cheaper, it needs to be something that everyone pays for not just hunters.
 
I would like to see whats spent on trucks and trailers. If they have lease trucks then I understand. But if they are buying the trucks in full I can see a problem. If they buy trucks maybe instead of buying brand new trucks every year or 2 years maybe try to get a couple extra years on them... That's less taxes and stickers to buy.

But if they lease them you are not going to get them much cheaper.

Just one thing I thought about. I need to ponder some more
 
I think that there is little appetite in Wyoming for an increase in fuel taxes or in the sales tax. The gasoline tax was raised 10 cents a gallon just a year or so ago. It is likely too early to go back to that well again. I know that an increase in the local option sales tax has been defeated a couple of times in Park County. I don't see that passing a vote.

just sayin..mh
 
>>Keep it simple. Increase tag
>>prices across the board.
>>Currently they dont even cover
>>costs to manage these species
>>let alone the non game
>>species. This should apply
>>to residents only.
>
>
>The G&F needs a lot more
>money than any kind of
>a resident fee increase would
>ever achieve. I think
>BuzzH is asking for long
>term solutions like some of
>us have already purposed and
>that would also include money
>from nonconsumptive users of the
>outdoors.

I am well aware of what he is asking for. I just happen to disagree with over complicating where these sources of funding should come from. I find it disingenuous for hunters to ask the non-consumptive users to step up to the plate when we as hunters wont even step up to cover the costs associated with managing the game we like to consume. Get the prices for tags inline with the costs associated to manage the game then we can sort how and who is going to pay for managing the tweety birds and such.

A tag increase would absolutely cover the needed funds to manage these species if it was truly reflective of the costs. If we continue down the road of a few dollars every 7 or 8 years then we can fully expect to never solve the problem but rather figure out what other well we can try to tap. Rather than play the game of figure out what group hasn't seen a tax or fee increase lately and see if we can hit them while they are not paying attention is the wrong way in my opinion.

I get the idea of lets think outside the box and brainstorm and I am not trying to say this shouldn't happen but if we do not start with those that have the most vested interest of the G&F in mind then we will never solve the problem.

The added benefit of a cost reflective tag price is it gives the public more input on how the G&F spends its money. By truly reflecting the cost of management it allows those paying the costs to determine if a proposed program is really worth the price.

That rant being said, I would support a 12.5% royalty on top line revenue for all outfitted hunts that take place on public land.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-14 AT 10:12AM (MST)[p]Buzz and I were part of a group of sportsman, representing WYSA (WY Sportsman Alliance) that met with Director Talbott yesterday about the state of the G&F. It was all laid out before us to see and offered to us to take. Budgets, revenues, expenses, employee & budget cuts, projected revenues and expenses, program cuts, you name it and it was there for us to see.

When Buzz says the Dept has been streamlined that includes equip and vehicles. Jobs have been eliminated for good. Talbott was clear on the fact that no field positions would be eliminated and that he would maintain those game wardens and biologists in the field for the good of the resource.

One thing is clear, from our observations of the past two legislative sessions; license fee increases won't happen anytime soon. Any kind of new taxes will be hard to swallow, also. Do we have to think out of the box? Yes, but we can plant those seeds to bring future legislation for something more permanent like a sales tax.

Again, I will state, first we need to bring in all consumptive users to the table and make sure they are paying their way for the resource. Buzz understands this, but this seems to fall on deaf ears with most others including some members of sportsman's groups. Politics can be ugly, but it gets down right nasty when it messes with our wildlife resource.

I also will state that I am very uneasy bringing non-consumptive users to the table. There is no doubt that when they begin to pay, that somehow they may get a voice in wildlife decesions. Some organizations have many nonconsumptive users as members and don't see it my way, but I strictly speak as a hunter, sportsman, consumptive wildlife user. It's the guys like us that have beared the burden of wild management and I'm uneasy bringing in those that might want to hinder our hunting traditions. We must be caeful in this endeavour.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-14 AT 10:13AM (MST)[p]I know you are going to laugh but...offer more tags to nonres! Every other state seems to be cutting the number of nonres tags...what a novel idea of increasing nonres tags to increase the budget! How many res tags does it take to equal the $ of 1 nonres tag.

I'm sure Wyo res would pull for that one! If given the choice which route would Wyo res would favor....pick one....higher taxes or fewer res tags?

On a more serious note, I think the license plate idea mentioned above is a good one. There ought to be other similar suggestions that aren't as invasive as taxes and license price/number changes.
 
jm77, I completely understand that getting a license fee increase is not going to happen but I just can't help but feel that this is the drum that needs to be beaten over and over until the message sinks in. The two biggest drains on the G&F budget from a license fee vs. program cost standpoint are sport fishing and elk. With some very rudimentary and simplistic numbers an increase in res license fee on fishing to $42 and elk to $90 and darn near the entire problem goes away. The state is giving away tags. How many residents, without looking it up, can even tell me how much a fishing license and elk tag currently costs? Both of these activities are at an all time high in terms of quantity and quality and the state spends tremendous amounts of money on these programs and then practically gives away a free license.

Look at upland game birds. The state spends $2.7M on pheasants and only gets $700K in total license revenue. If you want to hunt pheasants in Wyoming, great but at least cover the costs with your price of admission. A resident license only costs $16. A movie ticket cost $10. Months of hunting opportunity vs. 2 hours of sitting on your butt. I just pull my hair out with how foolish it is to keep license fees so artificially low. Nothing other than Wyoming hunting licenses costs the same today as it did in 2007.

We need to tread very lightly on the non-consumptive users. Their contributions in the state have been steadily declining. It dropped $75M from 2010 to 2011. That well isn't exactly overflowing either.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-14 AT 11:06AM (MST)[p]Great post jm77. I have been chewed up and spit out by Buzz and Topgun in the past for disagreeing with them that general money is needed to fund F&G. I do think if it could be seperated into two different divisions of Game animals and non game animals, then other money could be used for the non game side. Then those that bring the money to the table for non game could have a say. But then 20 years down the road all of the roads are closed because of a "Spotted Owl". I don't have the answers but I do spend a fair amount of my hunting dollars in Wyoming. And I do believe if general funds or any money not generated by hunting will put an end to hunting as we know it.

DZ
 
A check box on your state tax return to donate to G&F. Raise big game fees but include a fishing license with the purchase of a big game tag and get some Pittman Robertson cash back.

Again audit each department within the G&F seeking out areas for cost reductions from the ground up to the main office. Don't tell me there isn't any areas where pork cannot be trimmed from the budget. Make these people accountable by scruttenizing their operations or areas of responsibility. The are ways of increasing effeciencies. Its government for crying out loud there is plenty of fat.

"Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway."
 
I really trust BuzzH and jm77 because of their dedication, energy and countless personal hours spent trying to help in anything/everything relating to conservation, habitat, etc. Where I do differ, and it was just mentioned by DZ, is the nonconsumptive user statements by 2 of the 3. Many state G&F Departments throughout the country receive at least some funds from other than licenses to stay afloat and I see no evidence of them being railroaded to eliminate hunting like DZ stated may happen or any group trying to take over a G&F Department. Well, maybe SFW in the guise of sportsmen, but I'll leave that one alone for the time being! I also believe that you guys have absolutely no idea how much clout the nonconsumptive users already have in the running of most of the F&G Departments, especially throughout the mountain states. Just look at the clout they have regarding grizzlies and wolves just to mention two species that are costing us a fortune to manage. Other than a trivial amount of money from the GF that is dedicated money only to be spent on a couple different programs, we are paying close to, if not 100%, of the load. I've said many times that resident license fees in Wyoming are a farce. I will continue to stand by that statement and it looks like I'm not alone in that thinking. Montana is just as bad and because of their structure of forcing a NR to buy things they don't want in order to hunt something they do, I will not hunt up there, but I'd sure like to if their fee structure (not prices) was changed. The reason I have mentioned just a slight fraction of a cent on a gallon of gas is because that was done in MO and their G&F department, from what I understand, will never have to worry about their budget like Wyoming is right now. 10 cents a gallon that MH mentioned is a huge increase, but surely people could be talked into just a fraction of a penny per gallon if it was done properly by all of us to show what rewards would be reaped from that little bit that would never even be seen per purchase by an individual. I also don't believe that the WY G&F has much "fat" to cut from the way it sounds from those who have really looked into the situation like BuzzH and jm77 have. Yes, maybe the pheasant program should be eliminated and it at least should be self sufficient/supporting when budgets are the way they are. I doubt that any type of reasonable fee increase for the residents will solve anything because there just aren't enough residents to make up the money needed and even if there was we have already seen how those attempts have failed even asking for very small increases.
 
I found this on the web: Education funding in Wyoming consistently ranks at the top of the nation for education spending, and currently comes in fifth at $15,997 per pupil in 2011, according to the National Education Association.

Where do you think Wyo's education funding comes from? Do you think the oil, gas, and wind energy does much for Wyo wildlife?
 
I certainly give you guys 110% credit for all your effort and travel and time away from your loved ones to try and work out a solid plan for Wyo./G&F/ Wildlife.

Thank You---

Robb
 
Evaluate programs such as the pheasant program, good thought. How about fisheries? Reassess stocking areas/programs which cannot sustain fish populations such as the stocking which are taking place in the Snowy Range. Some of these lakes cannot support a reproductive population of fish, never have and never will, yet G&F feel compelled to raise and helicopter fish in. How about managing warm water lakes or reservoirs for cold water fish species? Don't work either sustainably. Wyoming isn't the only state guilty of this as Colorado and many others are right in line with them.

"Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway."
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-14 AT 05:18PM (MST)[p]Some good comments and discussion so far and would like to see it continue.

A couple more comments to help clear things up. First, if I'm not mistaken (please correct me here jm77 if you didnt understand the same), the nongame, most of the wolf management, and sage grouse are being funded via the general fund. Potentially the grizzly bear portion of management could also be funded via the general fund as well.

As far as continuing to cut things like fish stocking and pheasant programs...I think we're headed down a slippery slope with recommendations like that. While I will be the first to agree that the programs dont "pencil out" to paying for themselves, what they do is get youth, families, etc. involved in the outdoors. The short-term loss of some money each year for the long-term support of wildlife, fishing, and hunting IMO, is worth it. The future of fishing, hunting, and wildlife really is in the hands of who we recruit into the sport.

For those asking to scale back or cut those programs, I'd simply ask, what is it worth to see a kid catch his/her first trout, shoot their first pheasant, etc? How about providing an opportunity for families to participate in a weekend fishing/camping trip?

Those things are hard to place a value on, yet again IMO, are worth a lot.

Finally, I think we're dealing with a couple issues on the funding, one is in the short term, where I think ideas like a tax on outfitted hunts, perhaps a tax on each big-game mount a taxidermist does, resident fee increases, etc. can keep us afloat in the short term (2-3 years).

But one thing that Director Talbott brought up that is absolutely true, is just exactly what do we want our GF program to look like in 10 years?

Do we want the minimums and status quo? Do we want more opportunities? Do we want permanent access agreements? Do we want more access? Do we want more research?

Its largely up to us, but again, IMO, I want more access, more opportunities, more places to hunt, more fishing, science based management, more trapping, more big-game to hunt, youth programs, etc.

The only way to get there is to find a long-term funding solution so we can all roll up our sleeves and get to work on the important stuff. Working on this funding issue is a big deal, but I'd much rather be having meetings about increasing access, increasing herds, securing long term easements, science based management, youth programs, increasing opportunity, habitat improvement, etc.

This treading water and worrying about how we're going to fund the basics has to change and is hindering positive progress.

Carry on...
 
I generally never do this but on this thread, i just skipped quickly through the comments and then thought that no matter what has been said, i'd say my thoughts on Wyoming G&F funding.

Please don't raise Non-Resident costs any higher than they already are. Used to be that the guys that didn't make much could easily plan for a thousand bucks and time off to go hunt. I went a lot, most every year, and the costs were/seemed minimal.

Now, i work for myself at a seasonal job and though at times there is decent cash flow, seems everybody has their hands grabbing at what i bring in to the point that there is little extra money to do anything, let alone to costs of fuel, time away from the work, and the price of lic. & tags.

It's been harder, near impossible, for me to go outa state every year so i have to be happy to hunt my own state and be happy with that. I'm just putting in for points in Wy. because i know i just can't afford the trip. Some may have it easier, i'm glad that they do. There are others out there though, like me, that are getting priced right out of the game and that DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY AREN'T SERIOUS about their hunting.

That's my $.02, i do hope something can be done because Wyoming is a Special place for me and i do love hunting there.

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
"I know you are going to laugh but...offer more tags to nonres! Every other state seems to be cutting the number of nonres tags...what a novel idea of increasing nonres tags to increase the budget! How many res tags does it take to equal the $ of 1 nonres tag."
I am sure they won't be adding any non resident tags, but I have heard talk of reducing them, which definitely won't help the budget.
 
>"I know you are going to
>laugh but...offer more tags to
>nonres! Every other state seems
>to be cutting the number
>of nonres tags...what a novel
>idea of increasing nonres tags
>to increase the budget! How
>many res tags does it
>take to equal the $
>of 1 nonres tag."
>I am sure they won't be
>adding any non resident tags,
>but I have heard talk
>of reducing them, which definitely
>won't help the budget.


That is the whole problem with relying on license fees, especially from NRs, because you can't do proper game management by doing what you are stating. Game management and tag numbers should be based on how the game numbers are doing and not on money the G&F needs to support it. That is what has been going on for decades and why this problem is now exacerbated by cuts in deer and antelope tags because of decreasing game counts due to a number of reasons like drought and habitat loss. Joey also presents a good synopsis of the plight of many NRs that are being priced right out of hunting in any state but their own when fees are raised strictly to keep the budget afloat when resident fees are so low and that's a shame.
 
We really can't focus on license fee increases right now. After the last two sessions, the will to bring those bills forward is very weak.

Director Talbott was very open to us about the "anal" examine the Dept has gone through. Discussions about the Dept getting leaner now are pointless. I trust his assessment on this. If he's hiding something, he's really good!

He did speak about the pheasant program and like Buzz said was convinced it helps bring youth to the game. Maybe it does. He does recognize that sportsman are paying very little to be able to take advantage of the limits of pheasants available to them. I think we all agree that a permit specificly targeting this bird farm program is needed(I believe there is already a Glendo permit). I think bird hunters would have no issue with this, as most pay about $25 per bird in the off season.
 
As a Wyo resident, I agree that a resident fee increase should be on the table. Maybe make a bigger fee jump for bull/buck tags vs cow/doe tags? I love to bird/pheasant hunt too, and $16 for a bird license is a joke. There is a 10 pheasant stamp that you need to hunt the planted areas so that does bump it up a little.

I doubt the license plate idea would generate enough income, given our low population, but what the heck every little bit helps.

Here's a little outside the box idea...maybe...I wonder what a corporation would spend to have their corporate logo printed on every big game tag? Maybe Cabelas on an elk tag. Bass Pro on a fishing license, etc. Heck maybe even get the oil companies involved. The extraction industries do take a toll on Wyo wildlife, and they might want a little better public image. I know that several oil companies made sizable contributions (millions) to Uni of Wyoming this year. Just a thought.
 
Buzz I can't say I disagree with what you are saying but all finacial systems must be able to survive fiscal highs and more importantly lows. Apparently Wyoming G&F isn't set up to do so with ample reserves to carry through the shortfall. Instead when times were fat they didn't build large enough reserves. Bringing new people into the outdoors is important but when you are working a cash broke system driving up debt or dwindling finances you are creating a larger gap in the system making it more difficult to work your way out. Don't sell people short they understand. They may not like it but they will have to understand and eventually will. Letting people know the issues being faced and how the state intends to remain fiscally responsible shows integrity and a responsible government which bring confidence into the system from the people supporting the programs. Wyoming is smarter than this being the over all conservative state it is. Recommend as you feel but we cannot please everyone and must make sacrafices to help set up the next generations.

Good luck...

"Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway."
 
I would say that the people utilizing the resource should be the ones that pay to maintain it, if I was a non-hunter living in Wyoming I wouldn't want to pay more for gas to insure that the buck to doe ratio in region G is optimum, the thought of taxing outfitters and taxidermist sounds great but in addition license fees should be raised, if they need to fluctuate due to changes in tag numbers then so be it, I do not know how much money is spent working on non-game animals, perhaps that should come from taxpayer money, but I would agree that once you do that you are at risk of people you don't want making decisions, making decisions. The SFW is probably licking their chops over all of this because we all know there is another alternative that they would love to see implemented. I should also state that I live in California and I have never hunted in Wyoming, just wanted to throw in my 2 cents.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-16-14 AT 01:52AM (MST)[p]If the WG&F is searching for funding....think about it...what are the deepest pockets available in the state of Wyo? If your answer is oil, gas, mining, and tourism you are probably right!

I'm not sure if anyone noticed a hint I made in a previous post but is anyone in Wyo aware that Wyo has one of the wealthiest education systems in the entire United States? Does anyone happen to know why? The oil, gas, and mining industry can be thanked for this!

If the WG&F used their imagination they could come up with one or several ways to tap into this wealthy resource. This certainly would give the general public a better perception of the oil, gas, and mining industry if they are willing to step up to the plate and support wildlife, habitat, and management! Wyoming is literally sitting on a "goldmine!"
 
>I would say that the people
>utilizing the resource should be
>the ones that pay to
>maintain it, if I was
>a non-hunter living in Wyoming
>I wouldn't want to pay
>more for gas to insure
>that the buck to doe
>ratio in region G is
>optimum, the thought of taxing
>outfitters and taxidermist sounds great
>but in addition license fees
>should be raised, if they
>need to fluctuate due to
>changes in tag numbers then
>so be it, I do
>not know how much money
>is spent working on non-game
>animals, perhaps that should come
>from taxpayer money, but I
>would agree that once you
>do that you are at
>risk of people you don't
>want making decisions, making decisions.
>The SFW is probably licking
>their chops over all of
>this because we all know
>there is another alternative that
>they would love to see
>implemented. I should also state
>that I live in California
>and I have never hunted
>in Wyoming, just wanted to
>throw in my 2 cents.
>


That is a flawed argument. As taxpayers we all pay for things we don't use, everyday, all the time. That is the way all other systems are set up. I have never been arrested, or been to court, my house has never burned down, I have never called an ambulance, but I pay for all of those things.
 
>>>I would say that the people
>>>utilizing the resource should be
>>>the ones that pay to
>>>maintain it, if I was
>>>a non-hunter living in Wyoming
>>>I wouldn't want to pay
>>>more for gas to insure
>>>that the buck to doe
>>>ratio in region G is
>>>optimum, the thought of taxing
>>>outfitters and taxidermist sounds great
>>>but in addition license fees
>>>should be raised, if they
>>>need to fluctuate due to
>>>changes in tag numbers then
>>>so be it, I do
>>>not know how much money
>>>is spent working on non-game
>>>animals, perhaps that should come
>>>from taxpayer money, but I
>>>would agree that once you
>>>do that you are at
>>>risk of people you don't
>>>want making decisions, making decisions.
>>>The SFW is probably licking
>>>their chops over all of
>>>this because we all know
>>>there is another alternative that
>>>they would love to see
>>>implemented. I should also state
>>>that I live in California
>>>and I have never hunted
>>>in Wyoming, just wanted to
>>>throw in my 2 cents.
>>>
>>
>>
>>That is a flawed argument.
>>As taxpayers we all pay
>>for things we don't use,
>>everyday, all the time.
>>That is the way all
>>other systems are set up.
>> I have never been
>>arrested, or been to court,
>>my house has never burned
>>down, I have never called
>>an ambulance, but I pay
>>for all of those things.
>>
All of the things you listed have do with public safety, hunting and fishing are hobbies. The one thing though that makes me rethink my original stance is hunting does bring an immense amount of money into local economies, (supermarkets, motels, sporting good stores, etc), which would justify taxpayer money to help sustain it, but if It were me I would want the ones using the resource directly to pay for it and control it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-16-14 AT 08:56AM (MST)[p]newguy---As stated by marburg, yours is a flawed argument and he told you why. On top of that there are tons of outdoor recreationists that hike, bike, quad, camp out, bird watch, etc. We're paying for the outdoor experience just to take an animal, while they are out there doing everything we do and sometimes much more except pulling the trigger! Don't you think if they want to use the great outdoors that they should be putting something back into it like we do, rather than just riding our coattails like they have done for decades?! I know a lot of the guys don't seem to feel this way and think it will harm us in the end, but that's why I feel that all citizens should support the outdoor experience monetarily in some way or another.
 
resident type 1 limited entry tags should be double or triple what they cost now. Also identify additional type 1 le tags.
Sheep & moose 500
Goats 500
Elk. 350
Antelope and deer 150

And subsequently make all nonresident type 1 le ( not general or regions) only available in the special draw.
 
Another "deep pocket" approach that targets specific "users" is not an overall sales tax increase but specific taxes or some sort of fees. As examples, here in Colo there is a tourism tax on hotels, additional taxes on booze, tobacco, and now "weed!" Colo is currently making billions of dollars off the new "weed" tax. Can you imagine if Wyo adopted something similar where taxes went directly to wildlife and wildlife management improvements...now that's thinking outside the box!

There are a multitude taxes or fees that could be created that target specific people whether it is big industry (oil/gas/mining), sportsman, tourists, hunters, fisherman, bird watchers, pot smokers, drinkers, farmers, motorists, 4 wheelers....you name it rather than going for the big apple and increasing sales taxes across the board.
 
>resident type 1 limited entry tags
>should be double or triple
>what they cost now. Also
>identify additional type 1 le
>tags.
>Sheep & moose 500
>Goats 500
>Elk. 350
>Antelope and deer 150
>
>And subsequently make all nonresident type
>1 le ( not general
>or regions) only available in
>the special draw.


Thought we were talking funding solutions, not fairy tales.
 
>>>>I would say that the people
>>>>utilizing the resource should be
>>>>the ones that pay to
>>>>maintain it, if I was
>>>>a non-hunter living in Wyoming
>>>>I wouldn't want to pay
>>>>more for gas to insure
>>>>that the buck to doe
>>>>ratio in region G is
>>>>optimum, the thought of taxing
>>>>outfitters and taxidermist sounds great
>>>>but in addition license fees
>>>>should be raised, if they
>>>>need to fluctuate due to
>>>>changes in tag numbers then
>>>>so be it, I do
>>>>not know how much money
>>>>is spent working on non-game
>>>>animals, perhaps that should come
>>>>from taxpayer money, but I
>>>>would agree that once you
>>>>do that you are at
>>>>risk of people you don't
>>>>want making decisions, making decisions.
>>>>The SFW is probably licking
>>>>their chops over all of
>>>>this because we all know
>>>>there is another alternative that
>>>>they would love to see
>>>>implemented. I should also state
>>>>that I live in California
>>>>and I have never hunted
>>>>in Wyoming, just wanted to
>>>>throw in my 2 cents.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That is a flawed argument.
>>>As taxpayers we all pay
>>>for things we don't use,
>>>everyday, all the time.
>>>That is the way all
>>>other systems are set up.
>>> I have never been
>>>arrested, or been to court,
>>>my house has never burned
>>>down, I have never called
>>>an ambulance, but I pay
>>>for all of those things.
>>>
>All of the things you listed
>have do with public safety,
>hunting and fishing are hobbies.
>The one thing though that
>makes me rethink my original
>stance is hunting does bring
>an immense amount of money
>into local economies, (supermarkets, motels,
>sporting good stores, etc), which
>would justify taxpayer money to
>help sustain it, but if
>It were me I would
>want the ones using the
>resource directly to pay for
>it and control it.

I don't have kids yet either but I pay for schools, the list is miles long. All of these things are part of the greater societal good, as is wildlife management. Game and fish agencies are no longer expected just to regulate hunting, they are charged with managing wildlife, all wildlife, even species that are not game species. They also manage habitat and conducted endless studies that are mandated by law and court decisions. Laws and court decisions made by people who are elected by the populus or appointed by someone the populus elected.

Society has decided it wants to weigh in on game management practices as evidenced by the the ballot measures, lawsuits, court decisions, etc. That is the way it is now so society should no longer get a free ride, where they get input but only hunters and fishers pay the costs. Society wants input they pay as well.
 
>I found this on the web:
> Education funding in Wyoming
>consistently ranks at the top
>of the nation for education
>spending, and currently comes in
>fifth at $15,997 per pupil
>in 2011, according to the
>National Education Association.
>
>Where do you think Wyo's education
>funding comes from? Do
>you think the oil, gas,
>and wind energy does much
>for Wyo wildlife?




I think oil and gas does more than most think. Since I work in the oil field I have seen the benefits... The antelope get water from surface discharges. with out that in some areas no water would be found. During the winter the animals can lay near warm pipelines... When I was in the methane fields they pulled so much water out of the ground [4-8000' feet deep] that they made ponds and could irrigate wasted lands. By that I seen hundreds of mule deer move in for food and water and the grouse population exploded.

The worst thing I have seen in the oil field is the game and fish chasing 400 head of cow elk all around. Just 2-4 weeks before calving season.. I watched for hours this go on and can still not figure out what was taking place.
 
I like the sinners tax idea. They might get a seat at the table if we tax them at the bottle but they will be drunk.;) what does a drunk person care about hunting. Let's legalize weed and tax it for wildlife too. If your high you don't care about your opinion.
 
I know you guys mentioned that raising license fees is off the table, but that makes no sense at all to me.

What needs to be avoided is the 20 - 30% price hikes after going several years without any increase. If the license fees had some sort of tie in to an inflationary index and were adjusted 5 or 6 percent every couple years the pain in the wallet would hardly be noticed by residents or nonresidents.

Long term that is the only viable solution that I can think of short of involving nonconsumptive users.

Short term I would love to see the outfitters have to pay some type of higher fee that would maybe make up for the fact that they have the nonresidents locked out of the wilderness areas without a guide, but I very much doubt something like that would have any chance at all of getting through.
 
Go after some major tourism dollars by requiring visitors to Yellowstone and Grand Teton Park to buy some type of habitat stamp. It is indisputable that the wildlife is a large part of the draw for both of these parks. Get the visitors to pay something toward management. A $10 stamp would really add up. Exempt those who already have a WY fishing / Hunting license.
BIll
 
Would it be out of line to require a registration fee for a sticker style license for mountain bikes to ride on any public land. Just like the ATV riders have now.
Trevor
 
Heck for that matter you could also do a license for over night camping on public land sold just like a hunting or fishing license buy it once and your good for the year. If you already possess a fishing or hunting license no camping license needed.
Trevor
 
It would be nice to know where all the money is spent, I know that some of it goes to places not associated to hunting and fishing but I would guess that the vast majority does, with this being said the people that benefit from these activities, need to be willing to cover the expenses.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-17-14 AT 09:32AM (MST)[p]Topgun
I guess I don't see it as flawed as you do, comparing public safety or even schools to big game management in my eyes is not relevant. As I stated before I am not talking about non-game animals or other costs not associated with hunting and fishing, but the ones that are.
 
Could make it really easy and just make it be that you need a conservation stamp instead of making a camping or biking license. Make it family friendly and have a spousal stamp and a family stamp at a small discount
Trevor
 
>LAST EDITED ON Aug-17-14
>AT 09:32?AM (MST)
>
>Topgun
>I guess I don't see it
>as flawed as you do,
>comparing public safety or even
>schools to big game management
>in my eyes is not
>relevant. As I stated before
>I am not talking about
>non-game animals or other costs
>not associated with hunting and
>fishing, but the ones that
>are.

What we are all saying is that the G&F has many mandated responsibilites over and above hunting and fishing that many people partake in and don't have to give a penny towards. The guys are coming up with some good ideas and maybe a combination of them would solve the problems. As far as where the money goes, all you have to do is look into the G&F budget process that is open to anyone to look at. There are line items from salaries and fringe benefits, to vehicle acquisition, gas expenses, each program expense, etc. As BuzzH has stated many times because he is quite up on all of this, the G&F has cut about everything they can without substantial cuts now that most people will be up in arms over if they have to make them. Licenses and fees are now many millions of dollars short of keeping the Department afloat and something has to give because the minimal increase in fees that might possibly pass wouldn't come close to what is needed.
 
Paden said

"I know you guys mentioned that raising license fees is off the table, but that makes no sense at all to me.

What needs to be avoided is the 20 - 30% price hikes after going several years without any increase. If the license fees had some sort of tie in to an inflationary index and were adjusted 5 or 6 percent every couple years the pain in the wallet would hardly be noticed by residents or nonresidents."


Yearly indexing of license fees was the only thing that was disliked more than the license fee increase itself. The legislature is not going to give up their oversight of fee increases.

Unfortunately, yes for the time being license fee increases are off the table.
 
Place every G&F expense that can be, on the general budget.

Raise the resident fees. This will take some work from all of us to work with our Senators and Reps. This will be a very tough sell.

How much revenue did the Super Tags raise? Is this a viable fund raising source?

Auction tags - Wyoming has been giving the lion's share (up to 90%) of the proceeds of these tags to wildlife foundation that sells them. Perhaps a 50/50 split of the sale would be much better served for Wyoming's interests. The same could be said of the large number of Commissioner's licenses. Most of these tags sell for $7,500 to $14,000.

The idea that the oil&gas and coal mining industries are a virtual "goldmine" obviously comes from someone that is ignorant about the current economic environment. These commodities based businesses have taken a huge hit the past few years. Gas companies have seen their revenues go down by 60% due to the drop in liquids margins and gas prices. Gone are the days where the gas companies gave large amounts of money to every Wyoming charity that needed it.

Thanks, Buzz for providing a forum for input of ideas.
 
This is my finicinal foot print each year for about the past 8-10 years. This is dollars spent in WY as I scout and hunt over one season. Clearly the local economies are benfiting far more from my dollars than the WGFD. Another reason the general fund should be tapped into.

Deer tag - $337 ? WGFD
Doe Antelope Tag - $40 - WGFD
______________________________________________

Gas - $400 ? Local Gas Stations
Convenience Food/Drinks - $200 ? Local Gas Stations
Prepared Food - $200 ?Local Cafes/Restaurants
Lodging - $200 ? Local hotel
Miscelaneous (gear, ammo, tire replacement, horse tack, etc) - $200 ? Local retailers
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-18-14 AT 01:17PM (MST)[p]Dwalton, I had to bite my tongue after your last post! Wyo's wealthy education budget is an end result of the of oil, gas, and mining industry. Obviously tax revenues today aren't as high as when the oil and gas industry is booming but taxes fluctuate with profits. Even in lean years Wyo's education budget is still annually ranked near the top in the entire nation and the oil and gas companies can be thanked for this!

I also believe that the oil, gas, wind, and mining industries have disturbed and eliminated quite a bit of wildlife habitat over the years? Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like the tie between industry and the WG&F could be improved? There may be a way for the WG&F to tap into this in ways that have been overlooked in the past that help the industries reputation plus improve wildlife and wildlife habitat in disturbed areas in Wyoming? I don't consider the WG&F as just another charity and it wouldn't take much to improve their dire financial situation by big industry!
 
jims,

A typical coal mine in Wyoming currently pays between 26-30% of revenue to the Feds and State in royalties, production taxes and fees. This is not Income tax. That comes after all these taxes and fees. If you think they have the appetite for another fee to be tacked on top in order to improve this bad reputation you think they have you are mistaken. Particularly given that the resident hunter and fisherman has not seen a tag increase in what, the last 7 years. How much is that resident license again? I would venture to guess that the public perception of mining, O&G in Wyoming is higher than it is in any other state. Not sure the PR campaign is needed in Wyoming.

If you think the resident hunter screams like a mashed cat at a fee hike wait until you try to spring another tax on the mining industry and see just how receptive they are. You are far more likely to slip one passed the goalie on the hunting community than you are on the mining and O&G folks. If we want industry to step up to the plate we are hypocrites if we can't do it ourselves.
 
I can understand how O&G gets taxed out the whazzooo but maybe there is some other route the WG&F could approach them rather than a tax increase? Some sort of tax deductable fund that funnels directly to wildlife improvement projects comes to mind. There is no doubt that O & G has about the deepest pockets available in Wyo that is directly related to wildlife....there must be something?
 
jims,

These industries already pay for their usage through Wyoming severance taxes. As provided in the link, it explains why I suggested that we have as many G&F expenses come out of the General Fund. Some of this was incorporated last year by paying health insurance of G&F employees via this General Fund.

The reason Wyoming schools have the money they do is this severance tax monies is earmarked by the legislature for education.

Here is the link: http://www.wyotax.org/severance_taxes.aspx
 
>This is my finicinal foot print
>each year for about the
>past 8-10 years.

Yer footprint is nice, but it doesn't matter who leaves it. Demand for tags far exceeds supply. If you don't leave it, someone else will. Even though were talking about alternatives, if the State wants to maximize license revenue, they need some research and cost analysis to determine the break even point at which hunters will begin to walk away. Montana and Idaho failed at this miserably when they jacked up their prices. With Wyoming cutting tags, price points will continue to increase meaning the State can charge even more if they want to and still leave foot prints.

Interestingly enough, the local paper printed their election guide yesterday. One question that was poised to all House and Senate candidates was addressing G & F shortfalls. Quite a few pointed to additional funding from alternative sources for non game species. However there were also quite a few who stated license fee's need to be increased. Wyoming hunters are a vocal bunch when it comes to price increases and I'm not talking about the handful that frequent this site. If you think the legislature is going to pass a resident only license fee increase, yer kidding yerselves. When license fee increases happen, and they will at some point, non residents will get their chance to shell out a few extra bucks...
 
I agree, whether my money or someone elses, dosen't matter. What I'm trying to point out is that the local business owners are profiting off me, (or any one) far more than the WGDF. If local economies are benefiting that much from us hunters, it would make sense that they play a role in the financial support of the very reason we are rolling through their town and patronizing their goods and services...ie, tap into the general tax fund.
 
DWalton, What you mentioned makes a lot of sense. I would be curious if you or anyone else knows if the WG&F has any funding linked to the O&G industry and other sources that is tax deductable for promoting wildlife and wildlife habitat?
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-18-14 AT 06:54PM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON Aug-18-14
>AT 01:17?PM (MST)
>
>Dwalton, I had to bite my
>tongue after your last post!
> Wyo's wealthy education budget
>is an end result of
>the of oil, gas, and
>mining industry. Obviously tax
>revenues today aren't as high
>as when the oil and
>gas industry is booming but
>taxes fluctuate with profits.
>Even in lean years Wyo's
>education budget is still annually
>ranked near the top in
>the entire nation and the
>oil and gas companies can
>be thanked for this!
>
>I also believe that the oil,
>gas, wind, and mining industries
>have disturbed and eliminated quite
>a bit of wildlife habitat
>over the years? Maybe
>I'm missing something but it
>seems like the tie between
>industry and the WG&F could
>be improved? There may
>be a way for the
>WG&F to tap into this
>in ways that have been
>overlooked in the past that
>help the industries reputation plus
>improve wildlife and wildlife habitat
>in disturbed areas in Wyoming?
> I don't consider the
>WG&F as just another charity
>and it wouldn't take much
>to improve their dire financial
>situation by big industry!


see post 42 between post 22 and 23


And in Montana at the decker coal mine and spring creek mine they have some of the biggest mule deer a guy can see
 
What if Wyoming got really creative and instituted a modified futures market for tags. My example surely needs some fine tuning but it might be a good way to get a short term infusion of cash while not really affecting the long term needs of the department.

For example, let's say this year I cashed in 3 points to go antelope hunting in Wyoming. I spend $512 through the special draw and also use 3 points worth $90 over the previous 3 years. Of course I have a great time(who doesn't on any hunt in Wyoming?) and look forward to returning.

A couple weeks after the hunt ends and the memories are still fresh I get a letter in the mail from WY Game and Fish asking me to return. They offer me the following deal. I get a discount on the current price of the antelope tag in the special draw, something like $400 to $450 bucks(I haven't done the math but this is where the numbers would need to be crunched) for a tag that just cost me $512. All I have to do is pay the tag fee by the end of the current year with the stipulation that after 3 years I get an extra point in the draw. I still have to buy my yearly bonus points, 3 in this case, but I could apply after 3 years and have an extra point going into the draw. I(the hunter) also get bonus point prices that are locked in and I get to hedge against any future tag increase and point creep. Obviously this would only work for deer, antelope, and elk but those 3 species probably make up a majority of the department's revenue.

It would seem that the money up front would be more beneficial to the WY Game and Fish department now and that they would not be giving up anything tangible(the extra point). The time value of money concept applies in that $400 today is worth much more than $400 3 or 4 years from now. It would also encourage the hunter to stay up on buying points and would basically guarantee his or her return at some future date which stimulates the local economies.

I am basically just thinking out loud, but I think with some fine tuning perhaps this could be a viable method to alleviate some of the short term funding issues.
 
ArizonaBuild---What you mentioned is certainly thinking out of the box, but I think it would be a nightmare to try and do what you're saying and the extra personnel that might be needed to do it could cost more than it would gain. Also, we're really talking about long term funding for the Department, rather than short term like you are thinking about. It's an interesting concept though, so keep thinking like we all are and maybe one or more of us will come up with something that will do what's needed to take care of the problem.
 
One thing that is certainly being over looked about the outfitters is they spend millions state wide promoting the WGF nonresident tag sales collectivly as an industry already. A big outfitter like Lee Livingson, Yellowstone Outfitters or SNS, single handily brings 100,000 dollars in non resident tag sales directly to the WGF each year. They are marketing those tag sales in every corner of the nation. Without those outfitters marketing programs the WGF tag sales would be in the toilet!!!!


Heck Popgun would not even know where to find Wyoming on the map if he was not spoon fed wyoming hunting years ago by Sy Gillian......
 
I would think that Wyoming is going to sell out their tags whether or not an outfitter markets them. The outfitters benefit financially more than anyone from the wildlife they should have to pony up.
 
My personal opinion is this the cost should be spread out to all users equally. It is always easy to single one group out. If you say the Outfitters should "pony up" all that is going to happen is that cost is going to be added to the cost of a non residents outfitted hunt. Your not going to punish outfitters for making a living. No different than any other industry. You add costs to the O&G it just is transferred to the consumer.

I think as a resident of Wyoming my tags are to cheep comparatively to any other activity I do. The tags should be a minimum of $100 each species to even get close to fair market value. The non resident is paying $300-$1100.

I also think the WGF should be held to performance standards. Management should never be about the budgets.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-19-14 AT 09:56AM (MST)[p]>One thing that is certainly being
>over looked about the outfitters
>is they spend millions state
>wide promoting the WGF nonresident
>tag sales collectivly as an
>industry already. A big outfitter
>like Lee Livingson, Yellowstone Outfitters
>or SNS, single handily brings
>100,000 dollars in non resident
>tag sales directly to the
>WGF each year.
>They are marketing those tag
>sales in every corner of
>the nation. Without
>those outfitters marketing programs the
>WGF tag sales would be
>in the toilet!!!! >
>Heck Popgun would not even know
>where to find Wyoming on
>the map if he was
>not spoon fed wyoming hunting
>years ago by Sy Gillian......
>

Interesting perspective, but one which I also disagree with and your last retort is typical even though this thread is designed for positive posts to help a budget problem. Incidentally, his name is SY "Gilliland".
 
>Go after some major tourism dollars
>by requiring visitors to Yellowstone
>and Grand Teton Park to
>buy some type of habitat
>stamp. It is indisputable that
>the wildlife is a large
>part of the draw for
>both of these parks. Get
>the visitors to pay something
>toward management. A $10 stamp
>would really add up. Exempt
>those who already have a
>WY fishing / Hunting license.
>
>BIll


That would be impossible Bill. The Feds run the systems and there is no way that Wyoming could stipulate that people need a sticker like you mentioned to go into the Parks. It would be great if that was possible with the tons of revenue it would generate if it was legal to do so!
 
>My personal opinion is this the
>cost should be spread out
>to all users equally.
>It is always easy to
>single one group out.
>If you say the Outfitters
>should "pony up" all that
>is going to happen is
>that cost is going to
>be added to the cost
>of a non residents outfitted
>hunt. Your not going
>to punish outfitters for making
>a living. No different
>than any other industry.
>You add costs to the
>O&G it just is transferred
>to the consumer.
>
>I think as a resident of
>Wyoming my tags are to
>cheep comparatively to any other
>activity I do. The
>tags should be a minimum
>of $100 each species to
>even get close to fair
>market value. The non
>resident is paying $300-$1100.
>
>I also think the WGF should
>be held to performance standards.
>Management should never be about
>the budgets.


If the G&F wasn't performing to standards, I doubt seriously that their substantil payback into the Wyoming economy that BuzzH has spoken about numerous times would be what it is. Proper management requires a substantial budget to do all that G&F is mandated and they are certainly tied together because without the required money there will not be proper management!
 
What amazes me about this outfitter thing, is that they are a direct beneficary of our wildlife resource. Their clients are as consumptive as it gets, but I don't see ICMDEER on here responding to fact that outfitters don't contribute a single penny towards wildlife management. Why is that Jim?

Wolfhunter, you can talk till you're blue in the face(I actually saw you do it about predators) how outfitters sell tags and market our state and make all this money for Wyo, but it's wildlife we are talking about here. What gives Lee, Sy, Jim or any of the others a pass when they benefit directly from wildlife?

Sure, outfitters will just pass it on to their clients, what else would anyone expect, but they have a responsibility to look out for wildlife as much or more than anyone.

We are all in this together and if we ALL don't start carrying our share of the weight, we're going to have an aweful wreck to clean up.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-19-14 AT 11:59AM (MST)[p]I agree jm77 lets ALL do it together!!! You jm77 were the one who wanted to single one group out...Remember???

I would be willing to bet Jim and every single Outfitter would be willing to put up what ever it took to give back to Wyoming's wildlife, if truly went to wildlife. Throwing more money at a G&F budget problem is not the answer. We need to identify the budgetary problems and fund what is going to make a difference. Obama has proven time and again simply spending more does not solve the problem...!
 
So jm77 you say that outfitter clients are as consumptive as it gets... Lets analyze what your saying.

If the G&F sells 10 bull elk tags for a late Cody elk hunt, nine of them go to residents for $52 a piece for a grand total of $468 and one tag goes to a nonresident for $1077.... Who again is the consumptive one?? Then let's add in the $7000 the non resident pays to the outfitter who takes him on a guided hunt. That NR hunter buys a room in Cody for the night before and after the hunt, buys two meal at the local restaurants, and a couple beers at the Irma. Hit's the local sporting goods store for a few last minute items. That outfitter pays a local guide $1000 of that fee, buys hay, horseshoes, food, tires for the truck, diesel, tack and on and on. That money stays right here in Wyoming. So that one bull elk tag has done a hell of bunch for Wyoming. We did not even talk about Taxidermy. jm77 have you ever heard that every dollar made in a local area gets spent 7 times before it leaves the local economy. One nonresident tag sure did a hell of lot for all of us here in Wyoming. I give thanks to our outfitters. I am proud to have them, and call a few of them my friends.

I would like you to explain to me who again is the consumptive one.
 
Glad you seem to know figures wolfhunter. Check out the amount outfitters give game management through license fees and permits:$00.00

Meanwhile, they provide a needed service while getting paid, all on the back of wildlife. Consumptive users should bear a burden in this and that includes outfitters. If you had any knowledge of the G&F and the streamlining they have done with the Dept, you would know cutting expenses and programs now would cause harm to wildlife management. I have seen what's left for them to cut and it's not good for the future of hunting and fishing in Wyo.

And yes their clients spend lots of money in Wyo, but they(outfitters) are not pulling their weight funding the resource.

What's the outfitters solution to funding shortfalls? Why of course, raise NR licenses fees! I don't say any of this lightly, I have friends who are outfitters, but they are not greedy people. They tell me that WYOGA does not represent them and they feel the Outfitter Board is a joke.
 
Wolfhunter, FYI - DIY nonres hunters bring to Wyo's economy just about everything you mentioned other than guide and outfitter fees. There are generally a lot more DIY hunters in Wyo compared to guided....by far the majority of Wyo hunters are DIY Wyo residents.

I'm a DIY nonres and drew elk and antelope tags this year. I will be donating quite a bit of $ to Wyo's small town economies on multiple scouting and hunting trips....not just a few guided days. As mentioned previously Wyoming is going to sell their tags whether or not an outfitter markets them or not. Outfitters are only a small piece of the pie!
 
>My first thought was Teton Nat
>Park or Yellowstone. Another
>5 or ten bucks for
>wildlife.


The park charges enough, they can take some out and donate to the game and fish since animals migrate from the park and we pay to feed them in the elk refuge..

Good idea but they shouldn't charge more in the park.. Lot of locals refuse to go to the park for the high rates to get in
 
I have said it before and will say it again... It is my belief that a certain group will come to the rescue and suggest a Utah style system to fix the financial issues. I hope I am wrong but That is where I see this ending. Once they start down that road it will never end. I would guess Bob is working the back rooms with his solution. Just my guess.
 
I still say everyone is missing the boat here. There are ten times the amount of people that hike, backpack, wildlife/bird watch, do photography, and camp on the same land that we fish and hunt on if they were required to buy a conservation stamp alone that in itself would be in the millions. They benefit from the land just as we do they should also help to maintain it.
Trevor
 
>I have said it before and
>will say it again... It
>is my belief that a
>certain group will come to
>the rescue and suggest a
>Utah style system to fix
>the financial issues. I
>hope I am wrong but
>That is where I see
>this ending. Once they
>start down that road it
>will never end. I
>would guess Bob is working
>the back rooms with his
>solution. Just my guess.
>
Exactly what I said earlier, wasn't SFW against tag fee increases? I wonder why.
 
>I still say everyone is missing
>the boat here. There are
>ten times the amount of
>people that hike, backpack, wildlife/bird
>watch, do photography, and camp
>on the same land that
>we fish and hunt on
>if they were required to
>buy a conservation stamp alone
>that in itself would be
>in the millions. They benefit
>from the land just as
>we do they should also
>help to maintain it.
>Trevor


Unfortunately Trevor, they do not benefit from the land "just as we do". There is a huge risk that when you force these groups to help pay for a resource by directly taxing them, that eventually they will have a seat at the table to make decisions about wildlife.

I am not blind to the fact anti-hunting groups are already causing conflicts, but one defense many hunters use is that WE pay for conservation of wildlife. Even the NAMWC says wildlife is owned by all, but it's hunter's and anglers that bear the burden of funding wildlife conservation.
 
It's evident that Wyo license fees are likely going to increase sometime in the future (for both res and nonres). It's obvious that Wyo residents are set against raising resident fees but would be in favor of raising nonres fees.

I wonder if res could have a regular and special price license fee structure similar to nonres? Res would have the option of paying the lower price fee but with the possibility of better draw odds with the higher fee? This would be somewhat of a compromise between increasing tag fees across the board and keeping them as they are. The benefit to Wyo res would be they might be able to draw tags more often in the special draw. The WG&F could figure out a proportion (%) and price of reg/special draw fees. If say 20% of res tags were issued in a special draw at say $100/tag that would be a definite boost to the WG&F budget.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-20-14 AT 07:38AM (MST)[p]>Unfortunately Trevor, they do not benefit
>from the land "just as
>we do". There is a
>huge risk that when you
>force these groups to help
>pay for a resource by
>directly taxing them, that eventually
>they will have a seat
>at the table to make
>decisions about wildlife.
>
>I am not blind to the
>fact anti-hunting groups are already
>causing conflicts, but one defense
>many hunters use is that
>WE pay for conservation of
>wildlife. Even the NAMWC says
>wildlife is owned by all,
>but it's hunter's and anglers
>that bear the burden of
>funding wildlife conservation.


Just because these groups of people don't hunt or fish doesn't mean they are against it. I think if were going to bear the financial load are dealt were going to price out the younger generations or were going to continue to have short falls. We can either be scared about what other groups might do if they had say and then still have them be involved in the end or WE can invite them in with preset determinations of were the money from them goes to so they don't have an augment. A quick example would be to use it for the non game animals bats, song birds, flower research, trail rehab/clean up then they can't complain that their doing any thing to promote hunting or fishing.
Trevor
 
>It's evident that Wyo license fees
>are likely going to increase
>sometime in the future (for
>both res and nonres).
>It's obvious that Wyo residents
>are set against raising resident
>fees but would be in
>favor of raising nonres fees.
>
>
>I wonder if res could have
>a regular and special price
>license fee structure similar to
>nonres? Res would have
>the option of paying the
>lower price fee but with
>the possibility of better draw
>odds with the higher fee?
> This would be somewhat
>of a compromise between increasing
>tag fees across the board
>and keeping them as they
>are. The benefit to
>Wyo res would be they
>might be able to draw
>tags more often in the
>special draw. The WG&F
>could figure out a proportion
>(%) and price of reg/special
>draw fees. If say
>20% of res tags were
>issued in a special draw
>at say $100/tag that would
>be a definite boost to
>the WG&F budget.


There would be very little support for this by residents in Wyo.
 
Wyo residents aren't in support of any res price increase!

Wyo res license fees are destined to increase in the next few years. The reg/special tag option would offer 80ish% of current res tags to stay at the same price and 20% would be higher priced. I know quite a few Wyo residents that complain that tags are tough to draw. Some guys draw tags in back to back years while others can't ever seem to luck out and draw. With the reg/special tag structure it would pull draw odds in favor of those that are willing to pay a little more. I don't hear too many nonres complaining!
 
So, some good discussion again and I'll try to answer a few of the questions that have been asked, since I know the answers to some of them.

The idea of tapping some wildlife money for the new lottery was asked by a member of WYSA the first time the group met with Governor Mead. He basically laughed and said, "Get in line". Apparently there have been a bunch of requests were the money is going. Further, if, and thats a big "if", the GF was considered, it would likely be a very small amount as it sounds like the lottery money is going to be divided for several different things. Further, the Governor told us that the initial projections on the amount of money the lotter would raise is suspect. He and his staff believe it wont "net" as much as some projections are showing.

The ask of the outfitters having a fee attached that goes directly to the GF is a great idea. Its wayyyy past long over-due that they start kicking in some funds. Yeah, I realize that they will just pass that on to their clients, but IMO, guided hunts are a luxury.

To jims statement that the "residents arent in favor of a resident fee increase". Thats simply not true at all. There was a poll conducted last summer that found that a majority of Resident Hunters and Anglers ARE IN FAVOR of seeing their license fees increased.

Link here:

http://wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/poll-shows-wyomingites-support-hunting-and-fishing-license-hike

I think in fairness to jims, a more accurate statement would be, "the LEGISLATURE does not support a resident fee increase". That has little to do with their concern about Resident hunters and anglers and everything to do with political grand-standing.

One last comment, and that is continuing to hit Oil and Gas for more and more money. I just dont see that as a long-term viable option even if they agreed to open their wallets. Oil and Gas in Wyoming will dry up someday and we'll be back to square one. I think its more important to look at other sources that will remain in Wyoming over the long term. IMO, that has to do with increased hunting, fishing, tourism, etc. that is absolutely a renewable resource. If we keep vibrant wildlife and healthy public lands available to all users, we're wayyy ahead of the curve and looking at a renewable and sustainable future.

I also firmly believe that the only real viable, long-term, sustainable funding has to come in the form of a sales tax.

The rest of the ideas being thrown out are good band-aids for the short term increases in day-to-day operations. But, these ideas are not going to build and sustain the programs we have now, are not going to fund permanent access, are not going to fully fund the WWNRT, etc.

Thanks everyone for some thoughts on this, there are many people in Wyoming that are going to be working on this issue. Getting the publics input has to be part of that process...
 
Buzz H says:

" I also firmly believe that the only real viable long term sustainable funding has to come in the form of a sales tax"

I agree that this would be the easiest way to go as an agency is already in place with procedures to collect the tax. It would also hit residents and non-residents the same.

My concern is how do you actually get this enacted? I don't see the legislature being willing to pass another tax increase right now. They caught a lot of crap for the 10 cent increase in the gas tax. Would you say increase the sales tax by 1/4 percent solely for Game and Fish? Or, increase the overall sales tax by say 1% with 1/4% being earmarked for Game and Fish and the rest earmarked for other specific things or just for the general funding of the state. As Buzz H said "Matt Mead said get in line" when discussing a request for funds from the new lottery. Can you imagine that line if the sales tax was raised by 1% with every state agency claiming that their function, goals and purposes are more deserving of the additional tax revenue.

My view with increasing the sales tax reflects my concern for the way government spends and wastes money. Let's say the Game and Fish receives sales tax revenue that exceeds what they need for a given year after factoring in license fees and income from the general fund. Do they give it back or do they increase hiring, equipment purchases and grow the size of government. I know, that never happens.

just sayin...
mh
 
I support a fee paid by outfitters to help fund the G&F. However, we need to get rid of the guide requirement for NR's in wilderness before that can happen. It ceases to be a luxury when the State forces you to do it. It's a mandate.
 
>I support a fee paid by
>outfitters to help fund the
>G&F. However, we need
>to get rid of the
>guide requirement for NR's in
>wilderness before that can happen.
> It ceases to be
>a luxury when the State
>forces you to do it.
>It's a mandate.


Good luck on that one pardner!
 
Many have dismissed the conservation stamp for bird watchers / REI crowd too quickly. It is done in other states with reasonable success.
The same with a conservation stamp to access the parks. Of course they are "National Parks", run by the feds, but it doesn't mean WY can't impose additional fees. And remember, a hunting license would waive these fees, so it would hit primarily tourists, not locals and other already contributing (hunters). Worrying about giving other groups a seat at the table is unrealistic. Most are non-resident tourists anyhow, with no more input than NR hunters.

It would be easier and politically less difficult to go these routes (though still not easy), then getting a sales tax increase, or a fee upon outfitters. Time to set aside the preconceived notions of what "can't" be done, and roll up the sleaves and get it done.
Bill
 
I tend to agree that a tax for everyone will be the most realistic in terms of longevity and the amount of money generated.
 
Take a national survey.

"Do you support the re-introduction of wolves?"

Those who respond "yes" get a $500 yearly tax bill in the mail to be distributed among the G&F Departments that have to live with wolves. No free rides.

Eel
 
>Many have dismissed the conservation stamp
>for bird watchers / REI
>crowd too quickly. It is
>done in other states with
>reasonable success.
>The same with a conservation stamp
>to access the parks. Of
>course they are "National Parks",
>run by the feds, but
>it doesn't mean WY can't
>impose additional fees. And remember,
>a hunting license would waive
>these fees, so it would
>hit primarily tourists, not locals
>and other already contributing (hunters).
>Worrying about giving other groups
>a seat at the table
>is unrealistic. Most are non-resident
>tourists anyhow, with no more
>input than NR hunters.
>
>It would be easier and politically
>less difficult to go these
>routes (though still not easy),
>then getting a sales tax
>increase, or a fee upon
>outfitters. Time to set aside
>the preconceived notions of what
>"can't" be done, and roll
>up the sleaves and get
>it done.
>Bill


I think a stamp of some sort would be great for nonconsumptive users, but there is no way Wyoming can pass any kind of a requirement to disallow a person into National Parks if they don't have a stamp, sticker, etc. It would be shot down in court before the stamps/stickers could be printed.
 
Great idea Eel...

If the wolf lovers want to keep the wolves, they should have to pay for their carnage. Buzz you hang out with that wolf lover crowd maybe you could help adopt a few wolves too! To adopt a wolf you have to simply pay for their kills, adopter pays the value assessed to an animal by the WGF, same as a poacher. Cause thats what wolves are is poachers.... Bull elk are I think $5-7K. Bighorn sheep $25K!!! Budget crisis solved....Pay up BUZZ!!! One wolf pack in Jackson may solve the budget crisis single handedly!!!!!
 
>Great idea Eel...
>
>If the wolf lovers want to
>keep the wolves, they should
>have to pay for their
>carnage. Buzz you
>hang out with that wolf
>lover crowd maybe you could
>help adopt a few wolves
>too! To adopt a
>wolf you have to simply
>pay for their kills, adopter
>pays the value assessed to
>an animal by the WGF,
>same as a poacher.
> Cause thats what wolves
>are is poachers.... Bull
>elk are I think $5-7K.
>Bighorn sheep $25K!!! Budget crisis
>solved....Pay up BUZZ!!!
> One wolf pack in
>Jackson may solve the budget
>crisis single handedly!!!!!


There was absolutely no call for that post and nobody here, including the OP, is a wolf lover and you darn well know it! Why do you always seem to try to ruin a good thread like this with your BS?! Maybe that's why very few on this Forum pay much attention even if/when you come up with an occasional good comment. Please stay on track and don't take this thread into the toilet, as we need a good thread like this to stay that way to possibly get things back on track for the G&F.
 
Mightyhunter,

To answer this question:

My view with increasing the sales tax reflects my concern for the way government spends and wastes money. Let's say the Game and Fish receives sales tax revenue that exceeds what they need for a given year after factoring in license fees and income from the general fund. Do they give it back or do they increase hiring, equipment purchases and grow the size of government. I know, that never happens.

Thats not going to be a problem and that "extra" money that could come from a sales tax could be spent on some worthwhile projects.

For starters, the WWNRT is to be fully funded at 200 million, I believe currently we're around 90 million, IIRC. IMO, any sales tax funds above and beyond normal GF operating costs could go into that fund. I also see no valid reason to "cap" the WWNRT at 200 million if more funds are available in the future.

Another possible use of additional funds, they could be used for long-term, or even permanent access for both fishing and hunting.

I also see a potential for land acquistion in core habitat areas.

There are lots of ways to use additional funding without "growing gubbermit".

I dont think there will be competition for the funds if the bill is written that the sales tax increase is strictly, and only for funding wildlife and wildlife related items.

I do agree with you that it would take a huge effort to educate the public into accepting such a bill. I also agree it will be tough, if not impossible, to get the legislature on board. My thoughts are give them ONE chance, and ONE chance only to come to the table and play ball. If they refuse, then the only option is a ballot initiative and totally cut them out of the loop.

I'm all in favor of realistic compromise, but I'm over the "opposition of everything and anything attitude" that many in Cheyenne seem to think is an effective way to help wildlife and the Citizens of Wyoming.

We'll see what happens...but I can assure you something is going to give.
 
The so-called "green energy" industry should contribute significantly to wildlife and habitat management.

The wind energy industry is making and will continue to make a very significant impact to Wyoming's wildlife. Impacts to avian wildlife have been discussed ad nauseum, but the impacts to terrestrial wildlife are as substantial, if not more so.

It is basically an industry that exists soley from subsities. Perhaps a portion of these subsities should be directed towards funding game and fish agencies in affected states. If I'm not mistaken, a large portion of WNRT funding comes from the oil and gas industry, perhaps the remainder should be contributed by the "renewable" energy industry.
 

Similar threads

WVHUNTER
West Virginia Elk Herd
Replies
2
Views
711
Largebull
Largebull
Bluehair
A special wolf job opportunity
Replies
10
Views
584
SS!
SS!
M
Helping Deer in Region G (and everywhere in WY)
Replies
10
Views
881
Stillwater165
Stillwater165

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Big 'Ole Buck
IMG_0740.JPG
078F0CD7-A55A-4057-B600-05F49766680E.jpeg
big buck 2.jpg
Amazing Wall Hanger Buck!
Big Buck First View
20210222_170553.jpg
IMG_1237 2.JPG
826BBD0F-52A3-4688-A8EE-79118805D988.png
8931F721-7C78-4C10-AAD2-A1F0F39708D0.png
Slug
IMG_6664.jpeg

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