HB0112 Big Game & Trophy Licenses

T

Triple_BB

Very Active Member
Messages
1,817
Am I reading this right? This bill is to increase the percentage of licenses going to residents and significantly reduces the percentage of tags going to non residents. If so, this is one of the best bills to be introduced in a long time. Too bad they're introducing it in a budget session year. You residents need to be contacting your legislative reps and asking for their support. Looks like they're also including a small resident fee increase for all tags.
 
Maybe a good Bill if the residents could come up with the difference in money, which won't happen in my lifetime.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-11-14 AT 06:55PM (MST)[p]This was bound to happen and won't be a dying issue anytime soon. The competition for hard to get tags is putting pressure on legislators.
There will be a battle with outfitters, but they will be the only hunters against this. Moose, sheep, goat & bison going 90/10 would have been plenty for me.
 
Look at what the NR pays and look at what the resident pays. then there is the prefernce point fees, lots of NR hunters including myself will draw out then bunch it if you know it's going to be 20 years before you draw again.

How many residents are willing to make up the slack , it won't be just a small increase unless there is funding elsewhere.

I get sick of this screw the NR thing, my state of Oregon screws the NR worse than anyone and I'm always against it. I spend half my time trying to convince mouthbreathers here that it's short sighted to be so selfish.











Stay thirsty my friends
 
If it goes through WY will never see a dime from me on those species. I am not why states/residents feel they can screw NRs so much and still have the money to make the hunting worth a crap?
 
I'm a little confused on the second half of this bill?

From what I read its saying a reduction of nonresident allocations by 15%. Amen its time Wyoming comes more inline with the rest of the Western states.
The only concern is how will we make up funding. Bare minimum sheep moose and goat tags should be triple what they are now. I still support it we'll work out the details later. I'm writing my legislators tonight.
 
Residents love the cash we send to the state but hate the fact we get tags. same story in every state hunters aren't always the sharpest knives in the drawer. me me me.

I have no choice but to continue with sheep point fees since I have 16 but if the quota is cut very much you guys with much less than that would be wise to just tell them to shove it. a bathide a year for nothing after all those years of paying your dues is a slap in the face. it will take 30 years to burn off the top point holders and most of that will be through attrition.


I looked up both bills you guys are talking about and I found one for librarys and one for minimum wage. can you post or link what you are talking about.
















Stay thirsty my friends
 
>I'm a little confused on the
>second half of this bill?
>
>
>From what I read its saying
>a reduction of nonresident allocations
>by 15%. Amen its
>time Wyoming comes more inline
>with the rest of the
>Western states.
>The only concern is how will
>we make up funding.
>Bare minimum sheep moose and
>goat tags should be triple
>what they are now.
>I still support it we'll
>work out the details later.
> I'm writing my legislators
>tonight.

That's the same thinking that got us Obamacare.

"Go hunt for meat at Walmart."
 
I understand what nonresidents bring to Wyoming and I'm not opposed to raise resident fees to support it. See I put in for a majority of the other western state and I know how the rest of the States reciprocate. Its time for Wyoming to join the ranks of every other western state with the 90/10 split. Somehow az, nv, ut, or, and nm seem to scrape by.
 
From what I hear the WY G&F isn't having any problems finding a place for their extra money. If that's the case where will the shortfall come from?

Don't get me wrong, I don't resent the $500 my wife and I drop in WY just to apply and build points each year. I don't resent the top of the line prices when we draw either. that's because I'm treated fair and the hunting is worth it.

But there is a line where it's not worth it, 90-10 is going to be over the line for many NR hunters for what it cost to play the game.









Stay thirsty my friends
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-11-14 AT 09:33PM (MST)[p]This is a big issue to NR hunters, and frankly, as a NR hunter I'd be coming unhinged.

Theres 2 parts to the bill:

1. It reduces all NR tags to 10% of the available tags which is a huge hit to the perctages now.

2. It flips the number of tags allocatd in the Random VS. Special draw.

Currently, its 40% of the tags are reserved for the Special Fee and 60% to the Regular fee structure.

This bill will "flip" those percentags to 60% in the Special and 40% in the Random draw.

Looks like if you're willing to front higher fees, you'll be assured more of the "10%" of available tags, or 6% of the total tags issued.

If you want to keep things affordable in the Regular draw...well, you're now limited to 4% of the available tags.

I wonder where jims is...he told me long ago that this 10% cap on NR's "would never happen"...

Well, its being proposed now.

I hate to say I told you so...but I TOLD YOU SO.

The funding difference will be partly migated by the 10% fee increase to Residents as well as the flipping of the Special VS. Regular price tag percentages (supposedly).
 
Hey Utah, Colorado, Oregon, Nevada if you guys are so worried about Wyoming screwing "NR" please write your own state legislature and tell them to issue more NR tags. I'm thinking like 20% or so. Fair is fair right?

AGAIN, I don't mind paying more, but I want to see NR tags cut. If you dont like it hunt another state and I will pay more to cover what you would of spent.

Fedup, I totally agree.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-11-14 AT 10:37PM (MST)[p]All I can say is that it really sucks having a conscience at times...this being one of those times.

The selfish side of me wants this kind of thing to pass. But the unfairness this would create toward NR's, who've applied under the system in good faith, really wont allow me much sleep at night if I were to support it.

I just cant find it in me to kick the NR's to the curb so I have a better chance at a tag...just doesnt sit well.

I hated the way NM treated NR's a few years back by stripping a bunch of NR tags. I didnt get much sympathy from the NM Resident hunters, when they took away a large piece of tags from NR's. But I still cant be selfish just because someone else was.
 
Like I said, hunters are not always the sharpest people. what hunter thinks he's getting screwed because he only gets 80% of the tags in his state when the 20% are paying the bulk of the bill. in a nation of 312 million people and with WY population of 580,000 you're not happy with 80%. that's pretty pathetic considering most of the land you hunt on is owned by a guy in NY city as much as you own it.

I do not and never have agreed with the way some states screw the NR hunter, but changing the ones who don't isn't going to fix the problem.

I don't normally root fot the outfitters and landowners when it comes to hunting, but in this case they're the only voice the NR has. it's obvious why the outfitters care, the ranch owners who fee hunt or lease hunting have a dog in the fight too. in states like WY money often speaks louder than nonsense so that is my hope.

If this passes expect a transferable landowner tag system to be adopted something like CO has. there is too much private land and too much money being left on the table for there not to be. I'll just buy a tag from them and give the money to the landowner rather than pay your bills with my preference point fees.


I hate it when hunters have to go down this road it's counterproductive for everyone but the anti hunter.



















Stay thirsty my friends
 
Gros

Check your info. Colorado has a 65/35 Res to NR split in all areas that take less than 5 points to draw. The high point areas are 80/20 as you proposed. I think you included CO in error.

On another note, AZ gets away with the 90/10 split due to short supply and high demand. They also stick it to NR by requiring the purchase of a $160 hunting license just to apply for a hunt. Then the tag fees are comparable to other western states. As an AZ res that hunts NR in other states I recognize the painful cost of AZ, but the quality and success rate is here so the demand is high. I just wish AZ would get smart and add a tag or two to the NR random draw in each unit every year to give the NR without max points a chance to draw.
 
Maybe a amendment to the bill that CO residents can have a 80
20 split, lol.
Buzz, how's is it unfair when 90% of the other western states have the same split. I'm a nonresident in the other 5 states I apply for. I thought you'd be all about sticking it to the evil empire, I mean outfitter. You confuse me sometimes.
I'm drafting a letter of support to all my legislator's as we speak.
 
Fed, besides writing your legislative reps, don't be shy about getting your non hunting friends and family to write or call. These reps don't know who hunts and who doesn't, but they do know when they get support for or against a bill. I was calling family members earlier tonight letting them know I was emailing them info about their house rep, info, etc., in order to send emails out supporting the cause...
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-12-14 AT 01:09AM (MST)[p]It's pretty obvious based on past legislation that WY residents aren't willing to pay the difference. They weren't willing to pass a measly 10% increase last year and the one yesterday didn't even get introduced.
 
It's bills like this that make Tristate sound like a genius. As more and more non-residents get squeezed out, you may find more people supporting the idea of selling tags to the highest bidders. Sad to say, but I'd rather see all tags go up for auction than see them all go to residents.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-12-14 AT 07:52AM (MST)[p]"The only concern is how will we make up funding."

I'd say that should be a major concern! That is a lot of money to be made up.

As a non-resident, I am definitely concerned over this bill as I hunt Wyoming every other year. More than 40% of the land in WY is owned by the Federal Government, maybe that is how they came up with the current split. I have talked with the WY G&F on multiple occasions with recommendations on how they could raise money by just changing how tags are allocated in the non-resident draws.

If this passes, they should either:

1. allow the non-residents that have spent $1000s on points a chance to get out of the game. Give us 3 years before this is put in place so we can burn our points and never return.

2. let us sell our points back to WY.

I haven't been back to NM since they made their big change and it is possible I will not be back in WY if they go 90/10 split, at least I wouldn't be coming yearly and dropping $1000s into the economy there.
 
As a nonresident who has been buying points for seven years it does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling. But I would take the 10% nonresident cap if wyoming would drop the nonresidents hunting in the wilderness rule.Apparently we are not capable of hunting the wilderness in wyoming but can in every other state. I hope I draw my elk tag then I will be out of the game.
 
I think 440 pretty well summed it up. As a NR, all I know is that every time I get a "successful" notice from Wyoming, I feel like a kid again. I love everything about Wyoming.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-12-14 AT 08:32AM (MST)[p]I've tried to stay out of controversy lately but thought I'd add a few comments. Although anything is possible it seems like the WG&F would be shooting themselves in the foot if this bill passes. I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of the dire financial situation of the WG&F. I imagine the people in high places have written on paper the loss of revenue? To top it off the guides, outfitters, ranchers, and communities in Wyo would take a substantial financial hit from loss of visiting nonres hunters.

Although Wyo res would have better odds for drawing tags it may come at a high price! It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me but I'm looking at it from a nonres prospective!
 
Buzz,

I see your point about a change to the system being unfair to those that have fed the system for so long. The only counter I would make to that is that at some point a solution to the perceived problem needs to be floated or the issue will never get any better.

The problem as I see it and I assume the bill is trying to correct is that it takes far too long for residents to draw the high demand tags. I agree with this being a problem. This is the fundamental flaw with PP's in every state. At some point it is obsurd how long it will take to draw a tag in your own state. I am sympathetic to NR's that this change would hurt but if we take the approach that it is not fair to them then the problem will continue to grow. At least this addresses one problem for residents. Since that is who the state legislature should really be concerned with I support the bill. The funding difference is the only sticking point with me. I would like to see a much higher increase than 10%. Hunting in Wyoming is a bargain at twice the price.

Personally I think a fair compromise would be to only apply the 10% nr tag allocation to sheep, Mt goat, and moose. Those are the tags that are out of hand. A resident of Wyoming can have great elk, deer and antelope hunts every year and should have little to complain about regarding those species. My two cents.
 
The numbers don't add up on this bill and I'm sure it's because the politicians who introduced it can't do simple math. typical pandering .

They eliminate half the NR $2266 sheep tags and increase the resident tag $115 resident tag $12 . brilliant.

Then they flip the special and regular draw allotments as if that will fix it all, not taking into account that with half the tags and double the cost how many NR hunters will drop out costing them the point fee income. then there is the loss of half the tag fees they forgot about. but not to worry, they raise the $50 resident tag fee $5 that should do it.


It says there has been no financial or personal impact study done yet, like no duh if there had we wouldn't be talking about it. I will venture to guess this is going nowhere fast.

There are no stupid bills only stupid people.

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2014/Introduced/HB0112.pdf

















Stay thirsty my friends
 
You are not correct in assuming that everyone see's the dire financial situation of the WF&G. Several legislators do not see it as a revenue problem but rather a spending problem. There is solid push back within the state for even a 10% increase. The price of a starbucks coffee or one beer and people are balking at that.
 
I would have a lot easier time swallowing a 10% tag allocation if Non-residents contributed 10% to the G&F budget (or even 20% for that matter). Aside from losing license revenue and tourism dollars from fewer non-resident hunters, I think they will see a big drop in PP fees. PP's work great for things like Antelope and Gen elk tags when you can draw out in a couple years, but are the biggest scam going for "quality" tags. If you really look at the odds and the creep, you are not likely to ever draw a high demand tag (unless you are in the year 1 cohort). I think this will sink in with more people with a 10% allocation.

I would rather see system where any unit that takes more than 5 points is all random draw with a higher application fee and a license fee that is 2x the resident cost. The tag fees for species like Moose and Sheep are absurd. The amount of revenue they generate is tiny because there are so few tags - you could easily get to the same revenue with a small increase to the app fee.
 
I support this bill as a life long resident of Wyoming, but I am going to contact the sponsers and suggest they amend to remove elk, deer and antelope from it. It is not unreasonable to have a 90/10 split for moose, sheep, goat and bison. This would also balance out the funding issue, but I have no doubt Wyoming will find a way to fund the G&F if need be.

The outfitters have already filed another bill just to change the 40/60 NR split on Reg/Special Draws. HB 153

Get used to this, it may not pass this session, but it's not going away.
 
I doubt seriously that anyone in the G&F is backing a Bill like that when there are no provisions in it to make up anywhere near the shortfall in cash in their budget that would occur if it passed. It is sure a "Me Me Me" thing with some of the residents and that statement by the biggest of them all on here to just pass it and we'll figure it out later sounds like Nancy Pelosi and her speech to just pass the Obamacare Bill and you can read what's in it later, LOL! Oh yea, and call all your nonhunting relatives and tell them to support that Bill so "I" can get a good tag easier!!! What a self-serving bunch of crap!!! Many residents obviously have no idea how good they have it in Wyoming with the number of animals they can hunt for chump change just because of NRs that spend a fortune compared to the few bucks they drop to hunt their own state. Yea, and as another infamous resident on here always says that the NRs can just go somewhere else if they don't like it. I wonder what he'll be saying when his license fees have to go up to nearly what NRs are now paying to keep his G&F afloat to even run the draws, LOL! Some people can't see the forest for the trees because they can't see past their nose and one here leads the list and is followed closely behind by several of the rest of you that have already posted on this thread. It's too bad that there are only a few like BuzzH that can really sit down and look at the actual facts to see what will really happen if this goes through with the small population of resident hunters that WY has compared to other states. IMHO it won't be too many years and WY will be another Utah with DP at the head of things and all you residents that are crying now how unfair things are to you will really be crying the blues, LOL!!! Don't say it can't happen because if a Bill like that does pass now or in the near future it will be the precursor to transferrable landowner tags, set aside licenses for outfitters, etc., and that won't be good for anyone but the private land owners and outfitters.
 
HB 153 may pass because it amounts to a simple price increase to the NR. I can't say I'm crazy about it but it's not going to change my hunting in WY.

HB 112 is a total hose job.















Stay thirsty my friends
 
Just told HB 112 will not be introduced this session. It will come back in some form next year.
 
>Get used to this, it may
>not pass this session, but
>it's not going away.

Can we get an amen from ya brother...

Just got an email back from my House rep. He voted against the 10% increase on license fee's as he thinks non residents should be paying more than 10%. Interesting? He also pointed out he wants to see what the Senate comes up with on their G&F funding bill. He also indicated he didn't think 0112 would go anywhere with this being a budget session as they have too many bills to address. However, he felt confident the matter will be back next year...
 
>>Get used to this, it may
>>not pass this session, but
>>it's not going away.
>
>Can we get an amen from
>ya brother...
>
>Just got an email back from
>my House rep. He
>voted against the 10% increase
>on license fee's as he
>thinks non residents should be
>paying more than 10%.
>Interesting? He also pointed
>out he wants to see
>what the Senate comes up
>with on their G&F funding
>bill. He also indicated
>he didn't think 0112 would
>go anywhere with this being
>a budget session as they
>have too many bills to
>address. However, he felt
>confident the matter will be
>back next year...


I am hearing the same things from our legislators about license fee increases!

But as far as HB112, I will push for it only to include moose, sheep, goat & bison in the next session.
 
"The problem as I see it and I assume the bill is trying to correct is that it takes far too long for residents to draw the high demand tags."

And therein lies a common thought resident hunters have all over the West; the notion that a high demand tag should be drawable in a short period of time.
The problem with that of course, is dumping hunters in those units would shoot the animals out in quick order.
 
I certainly understand why a resident hunter would be mildly happy about a 10% cap on NR hunters. But it will make me 50% less happy on some species and a full 100% out of the game on others. For some critters it will just make no sense to play and pay for points any longer!

This isn't one of those "win win" times!

If we look at the math: It increases the resident draw odds by 10% while reducing the Nonresident odds by 50%. This means the resident should be 10% happier while making the nonresident half as happy... and in some cases conpletely betrayed!

The points will lose their value exponentially. They won't be anywhere near the value v price. It's as though the nonresidents played the points and application game in good faith and now the rules are changing to de-value what they thought they could dream for.

Talk about moving the goal posts!

Thanks for letting me whine.

Zeke
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-12-14 AT 12:31PM (MST)[p]I do not believe that a high demand tag should be drawn in a short period of time. I think it should be drawn in a shorter period of time than it currently is. I have no idea what the right amount of time is but I can assure you that the current system with PP's for these high demand tags is not sustainable and will need to be changed at some point. The guy just starting out can reasonably assume if he starts building points at age 12 he should draw the tag some time during his retirement. Seems like a ridiculous notion to me. With elk deer and antelope it is not an issue since a hunter has other options. Personally I think it should be total random draw for all tags. Since a bill to do that is not on the table I will support the next best thing.

I am in no way arguing that we should be issuing more total tags I just think the 10% going to non residents should be less for those high demand tags. The percentage is going to be between 0% and 100%. When was it decided that 20% is the magic number? An argument could be made that it should be higher. I simply feel it should be less. I happen to think the bill has merit other than I think it should address the only problem areas, Moose and Sheep. Quality hunts for elk deer and antelope tags are easy to be found. And the price increase should be more for resident tags.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-12-14 AT 12:34PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-12-14 AT 12:32?PM (MST)

Burned my WY moose, deer and antelope points last year. Hoping to burn my WY elk points in a couple weeks. If that happens, I'm at zero for all species in WY....imagine that?

I understand a bill is out there, but like jims, I'll be shocked if this actually goes through. Wyoming outfitters were strong enough to get and keep the NR wilderness law. Doubt they are going to stand still for a huge NR tag allocation hit. Talk about a major drain on the pocket book.....

That said...I've been wrong before!
 
feduptwo said, "Buzz, how's is it unfair when 90% of the other western states have the same split. I'm a nonresident in the other 5 states I apply for. I thought you'd be all about sticking it to the evil empire, I mean outfitter. You confuse me sometimes."

You dont find anything unfair about changing the goal posts in year 18-19 of a point system?

While you and your pal tripleBB have no compassion or give a chit about NR hunters...I do. They have supported the WYG&F at a very disproportinate rate for a very long time. The least I can do is support them at a time when they're taking a beating via greed.

I'm also a NR in other States, I apply for 10-12 a year minimum. I dont like it when Residents of those States choose to break it off in NR's, so why should I support the same behavior here? At some point, the age old excuse of "they're doing it so we should to", has got to end.

Its difficult for me to not support this bill, it will cut my wait time for sheep and moose tags greatly. But, at some point, I draw a personal line in the sand and try to put myself in the shoes of the NR's that have done so much for our wildlife.

I guess the one thing I look at it is how unselfish the generation before me was, guys like my Dad and Grandfather. They didnt ask for special seasons, higher tag allocations, point systems, raffle tags, action tags, governors tags, etc. etc...all that chit that we drum up to "help".

Those guys did the most and expected nothing more than an equal chance at the public Wildlife Resources...thats it. They were, and always will be, the type of people I look up to. Not the self-serving A-holes that propose this type of non-sense.

Why do I confuse you? Because I have the audacity and nerve to look out for a fellow hunter even if they are a NR hunter?

Considering the level of support that NR's have always provided...the bigger question is "How in the hell do YOU reconcile with the fact you're knifing them in the back"???
 
He's an American with the intelligence to see the big picture.
If a Wyo res doesn't draw a deer or elk tag don't they then have the option of buying a regional or general tag? Aren't they guaranteed a chance to hunt and have the chance to purchase several tags?
 
I will continue to build points and then MOVE to Wyo and become a resident when I have plenty of points to draw. And that's after I have exhausted all of my new resident points from Colorado after moving there from New Mexico... Thanks for the great idea, Desert Ghillie!!! LOL
 
>He's an American with the intelligence
>to see the big picture.
>
>If a Wyo res doesn't draw
>a deer or elk tag
>don't they then have the
>option of buying a regional
>or general tag? Aren't they
>guaranteed a chance to hunt
>and have the chance to
>purchase several tags?


Yes, one of the very reasons I live in Wyoming, where I raised my children, started my own business, bought property, pay my taxes on that property and all the goods I buy here, attend G&F meetings, fight for access to hunt and fish, spend countless hours talking and emailing legislators,spend countless days hunting the wildlife that belongs to THE STATE OF WYOMING and most importantly put up with the freaking WIND!

So 90/10 split for moose, sheep goat, and bison seems totaly fine to me.
 
So I am a NR from Oregon who considers Wyoming my primary hunting spot. I can understand the frustration of WY residents so I only offer this up as food for thought. I urge you to be very careful and think through thoroughly any changes to your pricing structures, % splits, etc. As an outsider looking in, I think you folks in Wyoming have a great thing going with your incredible hunting opportunities. And I would hate to see it go downhill.

As an Oregon guy, I so wish our state would greatly INCREASE the percentage of tags we give to nonresidents. We have a lot of things going against us here like predators, libs, etc. But one nonresident deer tag here equals about 15 resident deer tags dollar wise. I dream about how many deer we could let live annually if we allowed a few more nonresidents in the door to pay the bills.

Please don't let what has happened in OR happen to you.
 
Buzz,

The big picture is all the rest of the western states I care about have the same split. If a sportsman group or some other enity wanted to negotiate a 80-20 split across the board I would be I interested in leaving WY alone. I threw a fit when NM changed their split a couple years ago. Said I would never put in again. I type this as I'm a week deep in researching My NM picks.
I wouldn't be opposed to seeing this morph into what jm77 said and limit this to moose, sheep, and goats. I also wouldn't be opposed to offer to remove the wilderness area rule as a small concession to changing the split. With that being said we actually don't owe any explanation, or apology. Just about every state has changed the rules negatively effecting non resident sportsmen at some time or another.
 
The big picture is, why does Wyoming have to follow what other states do?

This year its limited to 10%...next year its "up to 10%, but not assured any" (think MONTANA).

Pretty quick its NO NR sheep tags like NB and SD...

Once the goal posts shift once, it keeps getting easier and easier to slide them back another 5 yards.

Where does it end? When is it enough? When NR's get NO tags?

The problem with "compromise"...you do it 4 times and you're left with 6 1/4% of what you started with.

You're right, we dont owe NR anything, an explaination or otherwise.

Just keep that in mind next time a tranferable license bill (outfitter or landowner) in proposed that will take tags from the Resident pool and give them back to the NR hunters.

I'm sure you'll have the full support of the NR's when its time to fight that battle...
 
You owe an explanation and an apology if you have a sense of fair play, you're just not legally obligated.

If you didn't need the money and the outfitters wanted the business we would have never got 20% in the first place. I don't think that's changed.

They will find an angle to get a little more money and this will fade away until the next time they want more money. same 'ol same 'ol.











Stay thirsty my friends
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-12-14 AT 10:59PM (MST)[p]How about Wyoming and every other Western state allocate 50 percent of the tags to residents and allocate the other 50 percent through auctions/landowners? That way residents will have access to 100 percent of the tags if they are willing to pay their share and non-residents will have access to 50 percent. Many Wy residents on this thread say that they are willing to pay more. Well, this would give them that opportunity.

Another positive about auctioning/selling 50 percent of all tags is that the price of such tags would drop tremendously. Tags that currently go for 6k could go for half that.

Tristate and SFW's madness makes more and more sense everyday.
 
We don't have to keep moving the goal post but a one time adjustment is long overdue. That's the problem with Wyoming we should be looking at what other states are doing right and adapting ideas or at least looking at ideas.
The best thing about the nonresident split changing would be hearing buzz's lapdog (aka "topgun")continually sqwak for the next 5 yrs and warn us about the dire consequences (it would be like y2k).
Now jm77 had some merits about maybe not including general tags for deer and elk (where the bulk of the reveune comes from anyway). The cats out of the bag now only a matter of time before the right bill is introduced. My prediction is its a done deal this side of three years, about time.
 
Thats funny I don't remember getting a apology from NM when they changed their split or from Utah when they ruined my chances at ever obtaining a moose tag after 15 years of applying for a moose tag. Then again I didn't think I was owed one either.
 
"Just keep that in mind next time a tranferable license bill (outfitter or landowner) in proposed that will take tags from the Resident pool and give them back to the NR hunters.

I'm sure you'll have the full support of the NR's when its time to fight that battle..."

Buzz, Buzz, Buzz
Now just what exactly is this new Sportsman Alliance about? Just more money for the G&F, or will they work together in the future on other issues? I sure hope so.

It doesn't matter anyway because residents aren't about to allow transferable tags and you know it. Besides, talk to any legislator and ask them what weight they give to a non-residents opinion. Legislators are the last to forget who puts them in Cheyenne.

On an interesting note, I heard it was Bobby boy who pushed HB 112. If it was, desperation must be setting in. Guess losing all those chapters is sinking in.
 
Feduptwo and jm77....you really dont think NR's have a voice in Cheyenne?

Thats far from reality...they've had a pretty big voice, its called the WYOGA and the landowners.

The WSA better hope their voice is louder than WYOGA's/landowners.

The problem with the legislature trying to "fix" things is that for every action, theres a reaction.

If the legislature wants to run the G&F I propose a bill to get rid of the GF commission, director, all but one biologist, etc. Seems the Legislature knows it all.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-13-14 AT 05:06AM (MST)[p]The writing has been on the wall for years in Wyoming, and almost all other states for even longer. This bill would be no surprise at all. I've come to expect bait & switching nonresident point values, and always warn newbies of it when they jump in the point games. States feel no responsibility to maintain the value of what they peddle. So for Wyoming I began planning years ago, dumping my 8 sheep points back when they jacked the nonrefundable rate to $100/year. That was a mathematical deal breaker. Then I quickly cashed in my moose points as soon as I could draw anything average, and afterwards quit that game. Then last year burned my max elk & lope points. So all I got left is deer points in WY. This bill proposal just pushed me over the edge for those poor value points to begin with, so I'm now all in to burn them this year. Was thinking of it anyway. Not worth waiting 10 years for a 170" buck. My closet will be bare by the time they try to devalue what I have left! So I beat them to the punch! :)

I have no problem with states deciding what they want for NR quotas. It's the part about devaluing previously sold points that I feel is unethical. In my 20 years of applying in 14 states, only two did not devalue the points they sold me............Arizona & New Hampshire. That's it.

***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club
 
"The best thing about the nonresident split changing would be hearing buzz's lapdog (aka "topgun")continually sqwak for the next 5 yrs and warn us about the dire consequences (it would be like y2k)."

That's some funny chit right there. I don't care who ya are...
 
Fed, how much money had you put into NM's point system before they changed the rules?

Most states besides WY and AZ have landowner tags, that offsets some if not quite a bit of the tags you residents think you're entitled to that we're getting. if this bill passes do you want to bet a LO tag program is inacted soon after?

I would think you're better off with things the way they are but if want the money to go to the landowners that's your choice . it's illogical to think a state like WY with so much private land, game and so few residents is just going roll over and give up on hunting profits.















Stay thirsty my friends
 
"Feduptwo and jm77....you really dont think NR's have a voice in Cheyenne?

Thats far from reality...they've had a pretty big voice, its called the WYOGA and the landowners"

Buzz
The one issue WYOGA will fight for the NR is license numbers. They actually support license fee increases to the tune of "price out the DIY NR so all the rest hire outfitters".
I was told that by a former Pres of WYOGA. And don't forget that it was that "pretty big voice" that pushed for and got the NR wilderness law, which is total & complete discrimination against any NR who wants to hunt wilderness DIY.

Yes outfitters will fight 90/10 split(one of the reasons I believe elk, deer and antelope should stay the same) But a fight between residents and outfitters has been brewing for a long time. We will see how either side fairs when the time comes, but this isn't 20 yrs ago when residents hardly were involved in wildlfe "politics". Things are different now.

440
I don't think Wyoming will allow vouchers or any landowner set-aside programs anytime soon. Was tried once by G&F and the residents shot it down. The outcry was so loud, the Governor stepped in and the outcome is what they call PL/PW program. It was also the beginning of resident hunters becoming more involved in the process.
Right now landowners get 2 'family' licenses for elk, deer,antelope and turkey if they meet requirements. That's plenty for now.
 
I agree with you that is plenty for now, but you are talking about cutting it in half. do that and there will be changes, look at CO's system would you rather have that?

I don't think there is a fight brewing between res and nonres hunters, I hunt WY almost every year and I've never felt as if I were treated different than a resident. sure there may be some thoughts there that people don't say, but I don't feel they're on a crusade to pour the pork to me .

The thing to always remember is in politics money talks. the NR hunter brings the money and that talks. I'm pretty confident WY will do the right thing and blow this off once it's all on the table.














Stay thirsty my friends
 
When the Outfitters figure out the LO's can draw all of the NR 10% allocation, leaving them no tags for their clients, they might ratchet up the pressure.
 
>When the Outfitters figure out the
>LO's can draw all of
>the NR 10% allocation, leaving
>them no tags for their
>clients, they might ratchet up
>the pressure.


Leftover tags(I think that's what you are talking about?)never figure into the % allocation. That's why in any given year NRs get 40-50% of antelope tags.
 
440 six pack, you're dead wrong residents sportsman in Wyoming have been griping abo for a long time. Now that the cats out of the bag it's only a matter of time.
 
you must be getting old Zim, Arizona put a big screw into nonresidents with the 20% rule.
I can't remember what Nevada did but I don't think it was much, Utah did a couple of things, Colorado has also.

Some years ago New Mexico passed a law that said all nonresidents had to use a guide in all big game hunts.

I called the NM tourism number and said that I canceled my trip to Carlsbad caves because of it and that I would never spend another dime on tourism in that state again.
It made a lot of people angry and they heard enough that the state backtracked pretty quickly.

Make a few calls, get the message out to those that rely on tourism dollars, don't just whine on here.
Wyomings fossilized legislature doesn't care if it hurts your feelings or not, but they do care about the votes from Wyoming residents.
 
>The Elk LO tags come from
>the nr allocation prior
>to the nr draw.


Got it, you mean landowner tags. The only LO tags that come from the NR allocation before the draw are for NR landowners. There are not many of them, so that would not take up the NR pool. Not even close.

Resident LO tags come from resident allocations.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-14-14 AT 02:12AM (MST)[p]>Arizona put a big screw
>into nonresidents with the 20%
>rule.

No. The 20% rule is just a matter of opinion, depending on how many points you had. I had about 6 at that time, and still did not care much. That rule took zero tags away from nonresidents. It simply changed some to preference tags rather than bonus. Repeat.....there really was no reduction in NR tags. On the other hand, AZ clearly slammed the door on AZSFW's sorry azz on their way out of town (with my help)! I have been buying into the AZ system for 19 years and have been treated remarkably well.


>Utah
>did a couple of things,

Did a "couple of things"??? Really? A couple of things? 500+ auction tags, and unleashed their cancer on numerous surrounding states? Trying to get them to buy in, while brimming with corruption and lack of transparency? All orchestrated by a guy who stated the NAMWC is outdated and should be "revisited" for elimination consideration. Ya..........OK.


>don't
>just whine on here.
> Wyomings fossilized legislature doesn't care
>if it hurts your feelings
>or not, but they do
>care about the votes from
>Wyoming residents.

You are truly one confused soul. Did you read ANYTHING I posted at all??? I said I began preparing for the point shaving years ago, and am really sitting pretty having burned 80% of my point investments to their fullest value. I have only a handful of deer points left to burn. WY tipped their hand on their intent years ago, when the talk began about altering the sheep/moose guidelines from the 25%/75& format. I am laughing now.......not whining! My points can't be devalued if they're already dumped or burned. I even clearly posted that I respect states decisions on how they allot nonresident tags. I did post about the baiting-n-switching, but that is exactly what this bill would do, by definition, not opinion. That would not hurt me anyway.

***********************************
Member RMEF, Pope & Young Club, NRA, UWC & DP Hate Club
 
>
>Some years ago New Mexico passed
>a law that said all
>nonresidents had to use a
>guide in all big game
>hunts.
>
>I called the NM tourism number
>and said that I canceled
>my trip to Carlsbad caves
>because of it and that
>I would never spend another
>dime on tourism in that
>state again.
>It made a lot of people
>angry and they heard enough
>that the state backtracked pretty
>quickly.

Wow I live here and never saw that rule change
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-14-14 AT 07:49AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-14-14 AT 07:37?AM (MST)

Zim, the last part of my post had nothing to do with your brilliant tag getting strategy, or you at all for that matter.

And I disagree with your assessment of Arizona, The 20% rule did really hurt the nonresidents chances of obtaining a premium tag, offering them no chance to draw unless they had maximum points, where the residents still have a great chance at drawing.

crazeymaez- you must have a bad memory? It happened when Gary Johnson was your governor, as I called his office also
 
>This bill is history.


Said that in post 30, but it will be back with changes next session. We will look to change only moose, sheep, goat, bison and grizzly.
 
Is Bison at a 10% cap already? Huntin Fool shows in 2013 there were 265 tags and only 19 Non res got tags.
 
>Is Bison at a 10% cap
>already? Huntin Fool shows in
>2013 there were 265 tags
>and only 19 Non res
>got tags.


There were 80 some any tags and NRs got 19. I'm sure it's 20%. I've seen a lot of BS on Huntin Fool about Wyo.
 
Ultimately isn't it the wildlife that is being managed? I'm curious but all that seems to be talked about on this post is in regard to bills being passed. Where exactly does the WG&F fit in when making wildlife related decisions? I don't know the structure and decision making process for the WG&F but it seems a little bit spooky when politicians are making wildlife related decisions? I would hope that the WG&F has some sort of input in regard to their own welfare for managing wildlife?
 
jims,

Welcome back from the coma...

This isnt unique to Wyoming, its the same way in UT, NV, NM, AZ, MT, CO,....etc.

The G&F agencies are NOT allowed to lobby on Legislative bills, just deal with the fallout.

Have you ever bothered to think about why the Sportsmen in any given state are fighting most of the Legislation being put forth?

While you were in your coma, a bunch of us have been battling this chit for the last 10 years.

Glad you finally had the "light bulb" moment...WOW!
 
>Ultimately isn't it the wildlife that
>is being managed? I'm
>curious but all that seems
>to be talked about on
>this post is in regard
>to bills being passed.
>Where exactly does the WG&F
>fit in when making wildlife
>related decisions? I don't
>know the structure and decision
>making process for the WG&F
>but it seems a little
>bit spooky when politicians are
>making wildlife related decisions?
>I would hope that the
>WG&F has some sort of
>input in regard to their
>own welfare for managing wildlife?
>

The G&F Commission makes the decisions on seasons and license numbers, which are presented to them from the red shirts on the ground. The Wyo G&F is one of the most stand alone agencies in the country. However law being what it is and the fact the agency gets money from the state, they are under the thumb of the legislature. That's news?

Governing by regulation, set by the Commission, would be the most ideal situation. But credit the outfitters, who while looking out for themselves, began a campaign of statute changes to assure their livelihoods. (because in many cases the Commission wouldn't give them what they wanted) This has forced the sportsman to basicly do the same thing or be left behind.

So far I haven't seen much in the way of legislation to manage wildlife(except of course from the Feds)Most legislation seems to be about license allocation. Hopefully with guys like BuzzH and others being vigilant, we can minimize bad legislation and keep issues in front of the Commission, where they belong.
 
Buzz, your rude comments are exactly why I've been in a comma and haven't really wanted to get involved!
 
jims,

If you can recall from last year, you were rudely "getting involved" in the discussions regarding several bills that only impacted Resident hunters. However, I warned you then that the fall-out of a Resident PP bill could see reductions to the NR quotas.

Now, when theres a bill that impacts you as a NR hunter (that I told you was about to happen), you want to try to understand why the Legislature is gerry-mandering into G&F issues.

Your vision beyond the front of your nose is ZERO...and thats putting it mildly.

You didnt want to believe me that the Legislatures of most Western States are not out for the best interest of anybody but themselves.

Remember when you told me that the Residents would "never" want to take away or reduce NR quotas?

Remember that?

Well, the fuggin' chickens have come home to roost pal. You would do well to listen to jm77, he has the pulse of the way most WY Resident hunters think. I believe he's right, that even though the bill to reduce NR quotas didnt pass this session...it will next session.

In case you were once again in a coma, you'll also notice I'm the only Wyoming Resident on this board sticking up for you as a NR hunter on the issue.

The rest of these guys are willing to sell you down the river without a second thought.

But, I'm "rude" because I told you over a year ago what was about to happen to NR quotas. Wait until the Resident PP bill passes and see how fast the NR quotas are slashed.

I lead you to water, and all you did was stand there with a dumb look on your face wondering if you should drink.

Now you can stand there with the same dumb look on your face and less NR tags, wondering why you're waiting 2-3 times longer to draw your "great tags" via the point system...wondering why "it isnt working".

You cant fix stupid.

You wouldnt listen then, and I doubt you'll listen now.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-14-14 AT 08:56PM (MST)[p]I'm not sure what your talking about Buzz?
The reason people want change is because they are unhappy, and they are unhappy because they rarely drawing tags.

No preference or bonus point system means a smaller group of people who draw tags and a larger group go without.
Hence, more unhappy residents.
I notice its especially upsetting for people who are unlucky on the antelope draw, since they are under a pure quota system, yet they are quite abundant in the state.
 
Piper,

Whats going on is that Residents are unhappy because they cant draw tags with 10% draw odds. Well, no chit, the odds are 10% what do they expect?

So, they hear a story about a friends nephews cousin who drew 2 red desert elk tags or unit 102 deer tags in a row and want to create a point system to make things fair.

As far as not drawing an antelope tag, thats a personal problem. Maybe quit trying to draw 57, 58, or 61 and try looking at the draw odds. I've drawn my firt choice pronghorn tag 6 out of 14 years I've lived here. Keep in mind, 3 years in a row I failed to draw my 1st choice with odds from 85-95%. But, I was smart enough to research a good second choice option and have drawn a tag every year.

Yet, I'm not crying about it and looking for a point system.

If Resident hunters arent drawing tags for elk, deer, and antelope in Wyoming, they're doing so by choice. Matter of fact, if they dont have 3 elk tags, 6 antelope tags, and 6 deer tags in hand...they're dumber than a post.
 
Yep its a official, Buzzh youre a douche, but I figured that out when you posted your goofy looking face on MM.

You always have something smarta~^ to say when someone says something you don't agree with. With that being said o great one, I have no problem drawing tags so stop trying to figure out why I think NR tags should be cut. You might be a big shot in your little group, but in reality you're a turd. I wanted to attend one of your groups functions over the summer, but was hurt so I couldn't make it. Now after listening to how you interact with people I'm glad I couldn't make it. Just another smokestick.
 
Buzz. There will be a smaller group of hunters drawing tags with a random draw system than with a bonus point or preference point system, that's a fact. That's why point systems were put in place.
In fact it can make a dramatic difference in the overall size of the group that draws tags.

Its especially noticeable around the part of Wyoming where I live, areas 87,1 and 2,90 1 and 2, 92, 93,89, and others on the resident pronghorn draw are about 40% odds, random luck can be quite random, and it often is.

I personally know some discontented hunters because they rarely if ever draw out, of course there some happy lucky ones too, but its the unhappy ones that complain.
 
GVH,

Theres no reason you want to see NR tag percentages cut for anything but the most obvious...selfish greed. Thats fine, just dont be a lying hypocrit about it. Own your selfishness.

I'd rather a person was honest and upfront with their reasons rather than coming up with lame excuses like, "Every other state does it".

I go wayyy past out of my way to explain why I oppose or support G&F related issues.

Like I said, I can only lead you to water...not my problem if all you do is stand there wondering what to do next.
 
Selfish greed? Wow youre a mind reader too. Buzzy is your real name Obama? Are you going to save all those poor NR from us big bad residents.

You still haven't answered the two questions I asked about you organization. Scared, dumb or maybe a little of both? More water please.
 
If you think its all about saving poor NR's...you arent worthy of a response. Your vision is suspect, as a best case.

But, since I feel sorry for your lack of vision...just this once.

I've yet to see how you're going to come up with the difference in lost license fees when your greed kicks in???

Saying you're willing to cover the difference is another joke. Seems YOUR legislature isnt willing to allow that to happen. I doubt you'll cut a check to cover the lost revenue of ALL the NR tag fees that would be lost.

Plus, even if you found a way to break even...the GF still wouldnt be fully funded.

I'm a big fan of having the horse well in front of the cart.

How about we figure out the funding shortfall we have FIRST before we start making the problem worse by reducing the budget via cutting NR quotas?

It would be one thing supporting a cut to NR tags if the GF was flush with cash, the legislature was receptive to resident fee increases, etc. But thats just not the case.

I'm about solving the problems we have, not making them worse or creating more.

You solve the budget problem FIRST and I'll support a NR tag cut...sounds fair to me.

BTW, when was the last time you worked on a solution to the budget woes the GF has?

Just curious.
 
You know it really boils down to this, why be a douche about it? 80% isn't enough? com'on. I guess I was brought up different, you're polite to guests, when they're picking up the check you're real polite. maybe I've been lucky the WY residents I've run into have been nice to me, either I've lucked out and not met the selfish slow minded ones or they don't have the guts to be rude face to face I'm not sure.


Once you get it to 10%, then you're going to say that's too much I want it at 5%. that's just the way selfishness works look at my state. I'm ashamed of the way we hose the NR but try to convince those self centered mouthbreather residents of that who think the NR is why they can't get a tag. give me a break.

In fact I feel stong enough about it I've packed out a few elk for NR hunters on my stock that seemed like nice guys. and I don't claim to have all the answers but any NR thinking of hunting eastern OR is free to contact me and I'd be more than happy to steer you in the right direction as best I can. I've lived here my entire life and hunted most of it at one time. I'd be a hypocrite if I did any less.

Hunting is like most controversial issues these days, we're far better off sticking together than fighting with each other.












Stay thirsty my friends
 
I'm dumber than a post because I don't have 15 big game tags in my home state?

Maybe I'm just not that greedy...

Buzzy, Buzzy, Buzzy...You definitely have the passion, but sometimes you do confuse us idiots.
 
440,

Most cant read sign.

They arent asking to cut NR quotas for selfish reasons...you have to keep that in mind.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-14-14 AT 11:41PM (MST)[p]nontypical,

You're losing the point. Residents want to cut NR tag quotas when they can legally...and easily, obtain 6 pronghorn tags (2 buck), 6 deer tags (2 buck), 3 elk tags, 2 lion tags, wolf tag, and a bear tag each year.

How much more opportunity do we need? Why further hamstring the nonresidents...the group that funds a majority of the GF?

Its a dumb, greedy move...and makes no sense fiscally or ethically.

Its a pretty tough sell for me to want "more tags" from the NR's when every year I kill 2 elk, 2 buck pronghorn, a blackbear, and 1 or 2 buck deer. I dont even bother buying doe tags for antelope or deer anymore.

That isnt enough for most of the Residents I guess...WOW!
 
Im a resident and am not for a reduction in nonresident quotas, a 10% increase wouldn't up the odds much anyway.

That said, I pushed for the recent reduction in nonresident tags for regions G and H.
Not for selfish reasons but because that is the only way to reduce hunter pressure in those heavily hunted areas.

In my opinion a lot of things could use a little changing but cutting nonresident quotas across the board is selfish and stupid.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-14 AT 08:02AM (MST)[p]>Buzz. There will be a
>smaller group of hunters drawing
>tags with a random draw
>system than with a bonus
>point or preference point system,
> that's a fact.
> That's why point systems
>were put in place.
>In fact it can make a
>dramatic difference in the overall
>size of the group that
>draws tags.
>
>Its especially noticeable around the part
>of Wyoming where I live,
> areas 87,1 and 2,90
>1 and 2, 92, 93,89,
>and others on the resident
>pronghorn draw are about
>40% odds, random luck
>can be quite random, and
>it often is.
>
>I personally know some discontented hunters
>because they rarely if ever
>draw out, of course there
>some happy lucky ones too,
>but its the unhappy ones
>that complain.


***How in the heck do you figure that one piper? Mathematically a random draw gives you the same chance at a given tag as anyone else in the draw. If it's a tough unit with just a few tags and a lot of applicants, it's obvious that your chances of drawing are less, but yet they are still the same as the next guy. To say that changing to a PP system will allow more tags and that's why PP systems are designed is absolute hogwash! The G&F sets tag numbers and, if done correctly using proper game management techniques, they aren't going to be any different if a unit or Region has a random draw or the tag numbers are filled by those with the most PPs. As BuzzH stated, it's high time the budget problems be solved once and for all before coming up with these stupid changes that would really decimate the G&F budget like a 10% cap on NRs would. I'm glad to hear you don't think that's a good alternative! I laugh every time I read when 3BB and several others on here say they will gladly pay more for their licenses. What is more? You put a 10% cap on NRs compared to what it is now without alternative funding being in place and you'll find out how much more you'll be asked to pay! It's very simple math and every resident should be able to figure it out. Eliminate half of the NRs who are buying that $600+ license fee for a bull elk, $300+ for that deer license, etc. Now look at your fees and tell me you won't have to pay many times over what you are right now to make up for those millions of dollars in NR cuts. Not double, not triple, not 4 times, but many times more. None of you seems to understand the simple math used to figure out how much a resident tag would have to go up to make up for each NR tag that is lost! Each should sit down when you have time and do it so you can come back to the table with a little bit more reasonable perspective of the situation when calling for a tag cut to 10%.

Your last sentence/paragraph is a killer though when you say you know some discontented residents who never draw out and are unhappy. Why don't you just say it's you because almost every time we talk about budgets, PP systems, and draws you are the one crying about how unlucky you are and that a PP system will solve your problems. Keep putting in for your hard to draw units and if/when you don't get the tag go out and buy all the other good ones that you have available to you like BuzzH mentioned. Many Wyoming residents crying for a 10% NR cap obviously take for granted how great they have it when they can buy so many tags for a large number of species every year for what one NR tag costs. Something has to give if you make those NR cuts and it will be the resident hunters paying through the nose for their tags if they don't wake up and smell the roses that Wyoming already has for them!
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-14 AT 08:33AM (MST)[p]How can you be so thick headed about some things TOPGUN?

A retired game bioligist just mentioned to me how he would like to see a point system put in place, because he would like to someday draw a pronghorn tag around here. Its not just me that would like to see some tags issued on a more equitable basis than a random draw allows.

Point systems are developed to distribute overprescribed tags to a larger more diverse group of the hunting public, and there is no argument that with all things being equal, they do just that.

And don't chew my tail about those nonresident tag reduction proposals, I'm not for them.
 
>How can you be so thick
>headed about some things TOPGUN?>
>A retired game bioligist just mentioned
>to me how he would
>like to see a point
>system put in place, because
>he would like to someday
>draw a pronghorn tag
>around here. Its
>not just me that would
>like to see some tags
>issued on a more equitable
>basis than a random draw
>allows. >
>Point systems are developed to distribute
>overprescribed tags to a larger
>more diverse group of the
>hunting public, and there
>is no argument that with
>all things being equal, they
>do just that.
>
>And don't chew my tail about
>those nonresident tag reduction proposals,
>I'm not for them.

***Me thick headed, LOL! Every time you open your yapper about a random draw, equity, etc. the more it makes me wonder what grade you gradudated from! Saying a random system is not being fair to everyone like you continually do is showing how totally out of it you are. Now it's really laughable that you're saying because a retired game biologist has the same clueless idea that you have about PP systems makes you right, LOL!!! Give me a break! Your other statement is also still completely false as far as PP systems go. A straight PP system might give different people one tag in a given number of years, but they are not designed to do what you stated. They are designed to make money and it's as pure and simple as that. All you would need to do if you don't like the present random system is to do what BuzzH stated and that is to disallow a person from applying for a tag for one or more years after he has drawn it. That is so simple that even you should get it and it wouldn't require any PP system or money spent on them. I also did not "chew your tail" about the NR cap proposal and, in fact, stated that I was glad you were not for it. Did you miss that part of my post?
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-14 AT 09:11AM (MST)[p]Most red shirts I know are for res PP including the big guy, although they are speaking as hunters, not G&F employees.

I understand what piper is saying about increasing hunters and he is right. There are just as many hunters that draw under the average, as over it. So what PP does is more evenly(I won't say fairly, because that word blows fuses in some peoples brain boxes) distribute the licenses over a period of time. Because of that, year after year, there will be more DIFFERENT hunters in the field.

And yes Buzz, we all know how many licenses we as residents can get. But let's be honest here. These aren't the tags we are talking about in the PP debate. We all have that elk, deer or antelope spot that is first choice. You do too and they are not available 2nd choice.

The PP effort is being led in Wyo by a very smart guy. He is a friend of mine, a good and decent family man. Face to face you will lose the arguement everytime with him. I doubt he will ever get on a forum, but I wish you could each speak with him, I'm sure Buzz will eventually. My thinking is, it is just a matter of time and I can assure most you the scary details you are worried about will be addressed.
 
jm77---Why do all these "red shirts" want a resident PP system? Yes, a PP system does exactly what you stated by giving the tags to different people each year until the pools diminish and it starts all over. I am not arguing that point at all. It's the fact that Piper says a random draw isn't fair and also appears to keep saying there will be more tags issued in a PP system than if the same unit was done by random draw. That is incorrect because a PP system does not lend itself to any more tags being given out in a unit than if they were done on a totally random basis if proper game management is being used to determine the tag number. Why not ask this PP guru friend of yours why he just doesn't introduce a Bill that would establish a set number of years that a person would have to sit out of the draw for a particular high demand unit? That would do essentially the same thing as a PP draw and not require anyone to buy Pps.
 
>jm77---Why do all these "red shirts"
>want a resident PP system?
> Yes, a PP system
>does exactly what you stated
>by giving the tags to
>different people each year until
>the pools diminish and it
>starts all over. I
>am not arguing that point
>at all. It's the
>fact that Piper says a
>random draw isn't fair and
>also appears to keep saying
>there will be more tags
>issued in a PP system
>than if the same unit
>was done by random draw.
> That is incorrect because
>a PP system does not
>lend itself to any more
>tags being given out in
>a unit than if they
>were done on a totally
>random basis if proper game
>management is being used to
>determine the tag number.
> Why not ask this
>PP guru friend of yours
>why he just doesn't introduce
>a Bill that would establish
>a set number of years
>that a person would have
>to sit out of the
>draw for a particular high
>demand unit? That would
>do essentially the same thing
>as a PP draw and
>not require anyone to buy
>Pps.


From what I am told "those red shirts" understand a PP system and realize most areas will roll over well. The hard to draw will take much longer, but EVERYONE draws. The fact is in a pure random system, some people NEVER draw.

As far as random being "fair", it is in year 1 and then the next year the people who drew have the same chance as those that didn't draw. Why is that difficult to understand? It's like chess, you have to think ahead. Why is it something that means so much to us, something that's an important part of our lives, have to be dependant on how lucky you are in a drawing? In other words, why should I get to hunt my favorite area 5 times in 15 yrs and my best freind only once over the same time?

I completely understand piper when he says more will get to hunt. Not more tags, but DIFFERENT people hunting each year.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-14 AT 12:45PM (MST)[p]Judas Priest, I agree that different people could hunt it each year and I swear that some people's comprehension is zero! That is exactly what is fair about a truly random system in that each person has the same chance each year unless there is a set time out before they can apply again when they do draw. To me that would be the perfect system. In that system they have a chance every year when in very hard to draw units, while under a PP system they have NO chance to draw until they are in a PP pool small anough to have a 100% chance at the available tags. The way some of these units are going with limited tags and a high number of applicants, unless you got in the system from day one you may not have a chance ever at a tag. The only way a true PP system works is if there are enough tags for the available people applying such that everyone draws a tag within a certain time period of just a few years. If that time period turns into 20+ years to a lifetime, I'd damn sure rather be in a random draw with a chance every year until I drew and then get a time out or even make it a OIL tag, but at least I have a chance to hunt it on foot instead of never or in a wheel chair for crying out loud!
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-14 AT 02:25PM (MST)[p]"In that system they have a chance every year when in very hard to draw units, while under a PP system they have NO chance to draw until they are in a PP pool small anough to have a 100% chance at the available tags."

Wrong. Our system will be based on 50/50 pp/random drawing. Every year, every applicant has a chance at a tag. This also helps keep point pools lowers as all different numbers of point holders will draw.

Topgun,
If you think my comprehension is zero, then you may choose to not respond to my posts. I actually think you are the one who doesn't get it. As a non-resident, you already have a point system and are living with it and hunting Wyoming every year. You act like this will affect you when it won't. If you know friends who are residents, let them speak for themselves. I'm sure it would a more civil discussion.

Jeff
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-14 AT 03:08PM (MST)[p]
Granted it's your state to manage as you guys see fit but the assumption that everyone will draw, is proven false every year, in every state that has a point system. Ten years from now, it will be virtually impossible for a new hunter to live long enough to draw select hunts. At that point, there will be a new wave of people wanting to change the system, as you guys are doing now. It's a never ending cycle of "I can't draw the tag I want, the system needs to change". Unfortunately, as every state has proven, there is no single "best" solution that benefits today's hunter and one joining the system 10 years from now. You probably need to do something, but what that something is, I don't know.

//////
"I completely understand piper when he says more will get to hunt. Not more tags, but DIFFERENT people hunting each year."

In Gunners defense, this isn't what Piper was saying although it's what he may have intended to say.

/////
"As far as random being "fair", it is in year 1 and then the next year the people who drew have the same chance as those that didn't draw. Why is that difficult to understand?"

It's not difficult to understand and I, hopefully "we NR's" understand the frustration. Question is, how do you fix it? Is a PP system better when as mentioned above, a guy coming in 10 years from now is too far behind to have any chance at select hunts? Maybe the random system and a modified wait period would be better.
 
Resident PP's aren't going to fix greed, they're a whole different discussion from the NR cap.

You're forgetting the prime motivation in government. money . I'm not sure what the resident PP will be but I know as a NR I drop $100's a year in WY and I'm glad to do it to buy points. G&F would be crazy to pass up getting a bit of skin off the residents by doing the same thing to them. follow the money and you will find the answers .















Stay thirsty my friends
 
wapitibob, read post 88, how can you not understand what Im saying? you would have to be an idiot to think point systems give more tags out, is this a kindergarten class?

As far as things being a never ending cycle, that's laughable.
There will be hard to draw hunts and easy to draw hunts, point systems or not.
There are hunts many people will never draw, and there are ones you can draw every year, IT Doesn't matter if there is a point system or not.
All the various point systems do is give better chances to those that apply consistently and haven't drawn tags previously, its not rocket science.
It has nothing to do with 10 year periods of time.
 
"You act like this will affect you when it won't. If you know friends who are residents, let them speak for themselves. I'm sure it would a more civil discussion."

Well said!
 
"There will be a smaller group of hunters drawing tags with a random draw system than with a bonus point or preference point system, that's a fact."

Pretty plain what you said.
 

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_3024.JPG
IMG_2178.jpeg
Forkie1.png
20231119_202707.jpg
Great Buck for my sweet wife
WY6.JPG
Packout (3).JPG
ABAD01A7-21E6-4C56-87D7-4D9F0E4297DD.jpeg
DSCN4254.JPG
20171204_163621.jpg
NCM_0119.JPG
4FB94E68-5172-401A-B2E9-0E90D6247965.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