Other Funding mechanisms for the WY G&F

F

feduptwo

Active Member
Messages
479
I agree that we need a resident license increase (except for mule deer)but I think there are other ideas that should be discussed. The fact is Wyoming hunters, both residents and nonresidents pay the going rate (in most cases) for resident general permits.

1. Offer Non Residents Mountain lion tags and bear tags at a reduced rate for non residents that draw deer, Moose, sheep, and elk tags. First of all bear and lion permits are extremely high when compared to other western states. Current price is $360. Offer to NR that are already coming for $200-$250.
2. Offer Residents a Sportsman combination that includes deer, elk, bear, conservation stamp, lion, small game, and furbearers. Discount the whole lot by 5-10%. A percentage of hunters would buy this "sportsman" license that don't currently buy these tags. I rarely buy all of them but probably would out of convenience.
3. Quite giving the bank away when a resident or non resident draws a tag. There should be separate archery tags for each LE unit. We can sell more permits just for the simple fact that archery has lower success rates. Wyoming is the only western state that doesn't do this. I know its nice to hunt 60 days when you draw a elk tag but the G&F can't afford to continue this.
4. Offer some additional late season tags for any elk. Limited quota for all elk units. Most other states have late season elk hunts. This should be a limited to not affect the resource.
5. Offer a very limited number of Oct-15-31st "late" season deer tags for all deer units. Keep these to 3-7 tags per unit but charge a premium price like double the price of a normal deer tag. In most cases it would be a great opportunity to hunt big bucks.
6. Split Commissioner tag revenue 50-50 with seller of tag & G&F.
7. Raise resident Sheep and bull moose tags by 200%. No change to price for any youth under 18 that happen to draw the permit.
8. Double the cost of Limited entry licenses for deer and elk. You don't want to pay hunt general.
9. Non game wildlife should be at lease partially funded by the state. Designate which employees and programs only benefit non game issues. This is the amount that should be funded by the state. Time for the non hunting public to help with this.

I would love to hear other ideas that would increase G&F funds while limiting the increase in license fees, resident or nonresident.
 
I actually disagree with almost all your solutions. They all lead to more tags and more animals being taken. The biggest one I fully disagree with is the idea of separate tags for archery. I know many guys who simply hunt WY on because of that option. Many of us have great opportunity in our own states. For those of use that hunt both, the only real draw to WY is being able to hunt some during the archery. If forced to chose archery only then there is no real reason for several people like me to hunt WY,

The reduced price non resident predator tags is a good one. But even at 200 your probably still a little high for the just in case I see one crowd.

I would think that WY would do good to charge a NR fee for coyote hunting.

Late season tags are will not generate much revenue. Simply put WY does not support the numbers currently to offer significant numbers of tags I this area.

We need to look at non consumptive user, the wild horse watchers etc.

Also the fish side of things always looks like a joke to me. How the hell can a state so tight for money stock every little stock pond with trout? Seriously what a damn waste of money to stock such place with trout....

What about a lic. Plate registration fee? I always thought that a small fee on vehicle registrations would be a good idea.

>I agree that we need a
>resident license increase (except for
>mule deer)but I think there
>are other ideas that should
>be discussed. The fact is
>Wyoming hunters, both residents and
>nonresidents pay the going rate
>(in most cases) for resident
>general permits.
>
>1. Offer Non Residents Mountain
>lion tags and bear tags
>at a reduced rate for
>non residents that draw deer,
>Moose, sheep, and elk tags.
> First of all bear
>and lion permits are extremely
>high when compared to other
>western states. Current price is
>$360. Offer to NR that
>are already coming for $200-$250.
>
>2. Offer Residents a Sportsman
>combination that includes deer, elk,
>bear, conservation stamp, lion, small
>game, and furbearers. Discount the
>whole lot by 5-10%. A
>percentage of hunters would buy
>this "sportsman" license that don't
>currently buy these tags.
>I rarely buy all of
>them but probably would out
>of convenience.
>3. Quite giving the bank
>away when a resident or
>non resident draws a tag.
>There should be separate archery
>tags for each LE unit.
> We can sell more
>permits just for the simple
>fact that archery has lower
>success rates. Wyoming is
>the only western state that
>doesn't do this. I
>know its nice to hunt
>60 days when you draw
>a elk tag but the
>G&F can't afford to continue
>this.
>4. Offer some additional late
>season tags for any elk.
> Limited quota for all
>elk units. Most other
>states have late season elk
>hunts. This should be
>a limited to not affect
>the resource.
>5. Offer a very limited
>number of Oct-15-31st "late" season
>deer tags for all deer
>units. Keep these to 3-7
>tags per unit but charge
>a premium price like double
>the price of a normal
>deer tag. In most cases
>it would be a great
>opportunity to hunt big bucks.
>
>6. Split Commissioner tag revenue
>50-50 with seller of tag
>& G&F.
>7. Raise resident Sheep and
>bull moose tags by 200%.
> No change to price
>for any youth under 18
>that happen to draw the
>permit.
>8. Double the cost of
>Limited entry licenses for deer
>and elk. You don't
>want to pay hunt general.
>
>9. Non game wildlife should be
>at lease partially funded by
>the state. Designate which
>employees and programs only benefit
>non game issues. This
>is the amount that should
>be funded by the state.
> Time for the non
>hunting public to help with
>this.
>
>I would love to hear other
>ideas that would increase G&F
>funds while limiting the increase
>in license fees, resident or
>nonresident.
>
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-03-14 AT 05:15AM (MST)[p]I actually like your idea's Eric.

Not sure about #6....but seems reasonable.

Maybe add a Non-ressy option on your Sportsman combination tag idea?

Robb
 
I don't neccasarily agree with your ideas as a whole but at least you are thinking and I don't have any better ideas. I still think all these little changes, additions, different tags, new seasons, super tags, etc. are silly gimmicks that don't get to the heart of the problem.

I think the most straight forward solution is 3 things.

1. Raise license fees to a level that covers the cost of managing those animals. Consumers should carry the burden. At this point increases should be on the shoulders of us residents.
2. Non-game species should be covered from the state general fund.
3. Outfitters and guides should be required to pay a royalty to the state for each hunt they sell. Say 12.5% of top line revenue. This cost would be passed on to the hunters that book. Every other business that makes money off a public resource has to pay royalties to the entity that manages and regulates that resource and so should the outfitting and guide industry.

I will end this by saying that I do not believe there is any amount of money that will restore mule deer populations to levels previously seen. Some projects will benefit segments of the total population but not on the whole. More money to restore MD herds is a fools errand similar to wasting money on stopping climate change.
 
Fedup( Eric)- Some good ideas, and others that are maybe not so good. For starters, I would disagree that a license fee increase should exclude mule deer. In my opinion, mule deer population decreases are not the fault of WGF. Management practices should be subject to scrutiny, and G&F held to task, but I don't know that we could legislatively omit deer licenses from fee increases. We could, however, sell separate licenses for mule deer and whitetails. If you want to hunt both, you need two licenses. This is a no-brainer in my opinion, and I wonder why it hasn't been done already.
Here are my responses to your other ideas:

1. I like the idea, but I think you would need to sell the lion and bear tags for $100 or $150(at most). Charge too much, and they won't buy.

2.I also like this concept, but let's not get carried away. The only license I have bought in recent years that you mention is a deer license. I have a lifetime conservation stamp. Maybe offer a couple different options there... that would include 2 or 3 licenses( for example- deer+ small game+ fishing or deer+ elk+ bear or lion, etc.).

3.Agreed.

4.Partially agree. We already offer a ton of late season elk hunting( mostly cow). I would be concerned about possibly losing some bull quality over time by offering late season bull tags. Other states can get away with late season bull tags because they don't have traditional winter range country where elk congregate as much as we do.

5. We have talked about this and I wouldn't mind seeing some of these tags as well. Can't see how it would hurt the resource. Very few bucks would be on winter range. As an example, unit 130 offers late season tags, and is very weather dependent. Those tags have been around for quite a few years now, without any decline in buck age class being noted. Adding some more of this type tag would also spread out applicants, which would make draw odds better in other LQ units.

6.Absolutely agree.

7. Be careful here. Though I agree in concept, you don't want to raise license fees so high that you end up with less applicants; thereby reducing the revenue and defeating the purpose. Wyoming would be flooded from all the tears.

8.Agreed.

9. It's my opinion that any non-game species that is legislatively mandated for WGF to fund should be paid for 100% by general funds. Our legislature whines about federal mandates, but then they turn around and do the same thing to G&F...and fail to see the hypocrisy there.

Mulecreek- I agree with all 3 of your points. I also agree that mule deer numbers will never be as high as they once were. Start small, and see where we are in a few years. Doing nothing to help mule deer is not the right thing to do, either. I, for one, will not just sit by and watch the demise of my favorite big game animal. But that's another subject for another thread.
 
>
>Mulecreek- I agree with all 3
>of your points. I also
>agree that mule deer numbers
>will never be as high
>as they once were. Start
>small, and see where we
>are in a few years.
>Doing nothing to help mule
>deer is not the right
>thing to do, either. I,
>for one, will not just
>sit by and watch the
>demise of my favorite big
>game animal. But that's another
>subject for another thread.

nt,

I agree and do not advocate a do nothing approach. However, I do not want Wyoming to take the approach of say Utah and continually try the flavor of the month all the while they watch the population slide.

I do strongly disagree with creating more tag types. While others think that we do not need to be able to hunt with both rifle and archery equipment or need to be able to hunt all the General elk units in one year. I for one think this is what makes hunting so much better in Wyoming than in some other states. We have the opportunity to hunt long seasons by picking up a bow before the rifle. By following the general elk units through the state you can start hunting bulls in September and end in November. I for one am willing to pay considerably more than I currently do for this privelage.
 
According to the g&f they have no authority over coyotes so they can't create a license funds. I fully understand that most consumers don't want less for the same amount of money. They fact is the g&f can't afford to continue this. A fee increase only helps short term. You have to sell more permits and I believe it can be done without significantly affecting the resource if you think out of the box. The no brainer is separate archery tags . There's a reason why no western state does this for limited entry elk or deer.
I would be ok with no residents with big game licenses buying bear tags for 175 and lions for 100. It's a pretty remote chance of seeing a lion and a much better chance of glassing a bear. Still 360 is high
 
I agree with some but not all. Here is an idea. They can drive the trucks they have instead of buying new trailers, trucks every year. BAM just save some money!!!!!!!!!!

I don't see more Late season tags when they are shutting down a lot of late season tags down.
 
I don't think we shouldn't be able go hunt with two weapons for 60 days on one tag. I just think the g&f can't afford to let us do it any more. Maybe create a "premium" tag that allows hunters to hunt both seasons and charge 1.5x that of a normal permit. Or let people buy a full price archery permit and if unfilled let them turn in their archery for a full price rifle tag.
The fact is the g&f is broke and are already cutting essential services Permits already cost more than most other states. Most nonresidents won't tolerate another giant hike. A fee increase like what is being floated will only fix the problem short term.
Its kinda like the bank that offers CD's that pay 10% interest while the rest of the banks in the area only pay 3%. Tell the guy that has been buying the CD that he may now only be making 3% and he obviously wouldn't be to excited. There is a reason the other banks are only paying 3%.
 
I also agree with some and disagree in others. I am certainly no expert and not looking to get into a MM internet arguement with anyone but, as a resident I like the idea of selling archery only-weapon specific permits. In southern wyoming there are a number of units that a resident will most likely never ever draw and if they do they should be spending there luck in Vegas not the hunting draws. My idea would be for example an elk area that offers say.........25 bull tags why can't they break it up and do maybe 20 rifle bull tags and an additional 15 archery only tags. As already stated earlier archery hunters are far less successful from a harvesting standpoint. Also a premium price can be established for the archery tags. I for one would risk a more expensive tag with less success versus the alternative of never hunting a unit. I have applied for a unit in southern wyoming for 18 years, where I have just in the last few years seen the number of tags offered cut by 50%,and have never drawn. So for me I would pay much more for a archery tag just for the opportunity to hunt the unit, mainly because I prefer archery anyway and do not mark a seasons success by filling a tag. I think ultimately we all as hunters are going to have to make some sacrifices in the very near future. We all love hunting at times 45-60 days on specific units and would love things to never change, however the reality is I too agree those days are gone and I would much rather see many of these unit force people to chose a weapon or a season to save what little resource we have left. I believe with a bit of imagination the wyoming game and fish could actually sell more tags, see little if any impacts on animal numbers, and still provide people with ample opportunity. Perhaps not every single year for 45-60 days at a whack but still opportunity. I fear whats in store if people don't start giving up a little to establish some sort of future for this great resource.
 
I see a few ideas I would agree with, but I think most people are overlooking the big picture. A lot of the changes that are being discussed really wouldn't do much of anything to help the budget to any real extent. The general public should definitely be shouldering the burden on anything that isn't hunting/fishing related, whether it be taken out of the General Fund or by certain other ways like a motel tax, a very small tax on energy used (gas, oil, etc.)that both resident and NR would assume.

Why are the dates of 10/15-10/31 being mentioned as "late season" when the mulie rut usually doesn't really get started until into November. We start seeing a few bigger bucks coming out of their hidey holes near the end of October where we hunt, but not enough to call it a late season. Since elk usually rut in September into possibly the first week of October, for them those dates might be considered late season. I've really always thought of late season meaning well into November if not even December for both animals. I have no problem with NR rates being a lot higher than residents, as that's the way it should be. However, I think most agree that the residents are hunting on really cheap fees for their big game and that's why I feel their fees should go up at a higher percentage than the NRs who are already putting in 80% of the total fees taken in. After all, when you go a straight percentage for everyone you're talking just a few dollars for a resident, while for a NR it's in the high two digits and for several animals into three digits. As far as a tag being used during bow season and rifle if it isn't filled, again I don't think the money is the big issue because it probably is small in the overall budget picture if that's all you're looking at. If it is discontinued, I'd like to see a person be able to at least apply for both an archery and a rifle tag in the same or different units in separate draws. That way you would get some extra money and not be forcing a diehard hunter to choose between the two weapons. Just a few thoughts, with the biggest being alternative funding if we are strictly talking about how to easily get this budget mess fixed without doing a whole lot of tinkering.
 
Charge a lot more for archery stamps, 40 dollars or so each and do them separately for each species.
Sounds bad, but its not, most states in the west have separate hunts,you pay full price for each and only hunt one.

Raise tag fees 20 to 30 dollars each for both residents and nonresidents, raise the trophy animal fees 100 dollars (moose goat and sheep) for both residents and nonresidents.
 
Some comments on a couple of the suggestions.

Specifically, offering limited late season tags for any elk and deer. Elk hunting in Wyoming is at an all-time high, with both opportunity and trophy potential better than it's ever been. There is absolutely no need to offer more opportunity to kill bulls potentially on their winter ranges. The intent for ?late season? elk hunting is to put pressure and harvest on cows/calves and therefore manage elk populations in areas and situations where they are above objective. Killing more bulls does nothing to manage the resource that hasn't already been addressed in the regular season.

And why, other than to make it easy to take a big mule deer buck, would we want to allow for more pressure on mule deer with more late-season tags? One of the reasons that the big, old, mature bucks make it through the season and onto the winter range to breed is that we hunt them in Wyoming during the absolute toughest time of the year, when they are not out in the open and are timbered up prior to the rut. Mule deer are a species that is in trouble, so why do we continually see suggestions to put more pressure on them when they are more vulnerable?

In the overall big picture, these actions would generate relatively little revenue for the agency, so I see no actual benefit from them other than offering an ?easier? opportunity at bucks/bulls. I am sick to death of hearing that we need to limit opportunity by making all units in the state limited quota during the regular season, but at the same time there should be extra opportunity for easy pickings on the winter range. We are at the point where we can't have our cake and eat it too.

"There should be separate archery tags for each LE unit. We can sell more permits just for the simple fact that archery has lower success rates.? This suggestion was proposed last year by Sen. Hicks from Baggs, and hit an absolute brick wall. It is pretty clear that overall, Wyoming hunters want to keep the opportunity to hunt archery as well as rifle seasons with the same license. Would an increase across the board for the cost of an archery license help to address the perceived issue?

IMO, one way to address revenue shortfalls is to ensure that programs are paying for themselves, specifically programs such as fishing and pheasant stocking. Everything that I have been told indicates that these are two perfect examples of programs that traditionally bleed money. If the end-user is expected to pay for these programs, we might need to consider additional ?stocking fees? tacked on to each and every fishing and game bird license. Does the access-yes program support itself with the voluntary donation or would it be beneficial to add a mandatory fee with every big game license sold? I would be very interested to hear from someone that has actual knowledge of the costs of programs such as these that could comment.
 
SouthernWyo--Your a little bit wrong in you assessment of the deer situation in my opinion, They do hunt them in open areas during the sept hunts in Region G and H, the bucks are all bunched up living on the summer range when the crowds come pouring in.

The way I see it is that OTC tags create poor quality hunting more than anything else, its not that limited hunting will create more deer, and in some areas not even that many more mature bucks, but limited quota deer hunting creates better quality deer hunting and lessens the chance of overkill.
 
Its great to hear some ideas being tossed around and that the issue of the funding woes is on everyones radar.

A couple points to consider:

1. Adding late tags, archery tags, etc. is not going to shore up the budget problem. Also, stay focused on FUNDING, theres plenty of time to talk about management, late hunts, etc. later. These discussions often end up off in the weeds of management, tag distributions, etc. Those things ARE important, just not so much in looking for funding solutions.

2. The current budget problem has 2 very distinct problems. One is how to shore up the budget short-fall in the short term. I think this one can be done via the 2 bills that are already proposed. The bill that looks to fund GF health benefits, feed grounds, and grizzly bear management and the License fee increase bill...those will keep the GF above water in the short term.

I also feel that the short term solution is the "easier" of the 2 working parts, and currently the one that must be dealt with right away.

The second part of the problem, the most complex and toughest to solve, is how to come up with long-term funding solutions.

This has been discussed in the past, recognized as a problem in need of a solution, but thats about as far as it went.

That thought process has got to change. We are at the point that we cant just keep dipping water from the same well, and asking Sportsmen to support 100% of the GF funding. Non-residents fees are reaching the point of diminishing returns. Raising resident fees, while a great idea and will help, is not going to solve a long-term, and projected, budget shortfall.

I'm cautiously optimistic that, unlike in the past, there is going to be action taken to really look at non-traditional, alternative funding.

In a meeting with Governor Mead a couple weeks ago, he made it known that he is tired of asking the Legislature to pass these short-term, band-aid, approaches to shoring up the GF budget. He understands the economic, social, and wildlife side of a properly funded G&F.

It was discussed that a blue-ribbon committee be appointed to actively start working on alternative, non-traditional funding solutions.

The challenge for everyone, IMO, is to start thinking about solutions to long term funding. If we solve that, the need for any fee increases beyond basic inflation increases wont even need to be discussed. We can pretty much freeze license costs and keep public wildlife accessible to most all Resident and Non Resident Sportsmen.

However, if long term solutions are not actively pursued, the only "solution" is going to involve license fee increases for everyone. The can will continue to be kicked down the road.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-04-14 AT 11:33AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jan-04-14 AT 11:32?AM (MST)

Like someone said Whitetail tags being separate from muley tags might be a good idea.

I mentioned this before but years ago at a meeting I brought up the idea of using money from the energy industry for WGF purposes and it wasn't well received.

It seems that those that provide funds are likely to expect and get a bigger say in management, that's why being a self funded agency as much as possible is deemed important.
 
Do you guys have a state lottery? If not, then get one going. If yes, then designate one game to funding G&F. LOTS of $ generated by state lottery stuff.

Even though I completely despise preference points....don't shoot me...you could double the price of them and gain more than you lose.

These ideas come from the economic waste land known as Michigan so we don't have any really good ones or we would have already done it.




Semper Fi
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-04-14 AT 01:04PM (MST)[p]I hear this arguement all the time:

It seems that those that provide funds are likely to expect and get a bigger say in management, that's why being a self funded agency as much as possible is deemed important

My response: They already have a say in Management and a seat at the table, may as well start charging them for their seats.

Prime examples: County Commissioners, Outfitters, Landowners, Farm Bureaus, Oil and Gas Industry, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. they all have input into Management decisions and really dont provide jack chit for funding. Yet, they get a big say in Management decisions.

I believe Wyoming has to look seriously at a 1/8-1/4 cent sales tax for wildlife management, fuel tax, taxes on those that profit from wildlife (meat cutters, outfitters, hotels, restaurants, gas stations, etc.), the state lottery idea mentioned above has some merit.

Bottom line, we need to start seriously looking at ways other than license fee increases, to raise revenue.

Thats the dead elephant in the room that has been ignored in the past.
 
The most obvious funding mechanisms where tag allocations across Wyo could remain exactly the same is to increase the price of licenses. I kind of scratch my head why Wyo hasn't just bit the bullet and charged residents more for licenses?

I know everyone will laugh but how about offering a small proportion MORE nonres tags? I don't think any state has ever done this before..what a novel idea! Wyo kindof shot itself in the foot many years ago when they decided to cut the proportion of nonres tags...now the WG&F is paying for it! I'm about 99.99% sure that will never happen but the last time I checked it takes 20 Wyo res tags to equal 1 nonres special priced elk tag. Possibly re-vamp the landowner tags issued and allocate them to nonres?

Another option that hasn't been popular with Wyo res is some sort of pref pt system. As you can tell I like to stir the pot and can already see steam coming out Buzz's nose and ears! I would be curious how much $ is collected each year from nonres when charged pref pt fees when applying for each species? Obviously nonres are allocated a fraction of the total licenses available and pref pt fees could bring in a staggering amount of $ to the WG&F.
 
Oh yah, forgot to mention....legalize quacky weed like they recently did in Colo with a large proportion of taxes going to wildlife! Other means of $ in Colo include resort and ski industry taxes... lotto.
 
Piper, in this part of the state, rifle hunting for mule deer doesn't start until Oct. 1st and usually runs for a week or two, sometimes from mid October through the 24th. Dependant on weather,anytime after mid October the mature bucks tend to become much more visible and vulnerable.

Also,I belive that the energy industry already does contribute significantly to wildlife management in Wyoming via the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust. I was under the impression that the Trust was/is significantly funded via legislative appropriation of energy industry revenues. Additionally, a quick look at the WWNRT website shows that various oil and gas companies have voluntarily contributed large amounts of funding to the trust, specifically for wildlife habitat improvement.
 
jims, you bring nothing to the table but dumb ideas. You must be busy "celebrating" the new pot law in Colorado.

Wyoming is the most generous state in the West when it comes to NR license percentages.

You can spare me the OTC elk tags in Colorado as proof that Colorado does more.

Lets talk about sheep, moose, goat, pronghorn, and LQ elk and deer tags.

Wyoming buries CO, AZ, UT, NM, MT, NV, OR, WA, ID, in generousity to NR's...FACT.

The only quota changes NR's are going to see in Wyoming, is lesser amounts of permits, not more. Theres plenty of talk of reducing NR tag quotas to provide more opportunity to Resident hunters (in particular sheep, goat, moose, bison, and hard to draw elk, deer, and pronghorn). The average Resident would be more than happy to point NR's to the leftover tags, while lowering LE quotas on NR's.

Keep up the good work jims, you're pushing more residents to think about lowering NR quotas.

Also, a resident preferance system wont likely make jack chit for money. Resident sheep and moose points sell for $7. By the time you look at the administrative fees...a point system for deer, elk, and antelope (that would likely be less than $7) wont make much of a dent in the budget woes.

Before coming up with more of your ideas, try stepping away from the bong...
 
SouthernWyo- I was referring to the areas in regions G and H that open sept 15 for deer, the areas where the big long range magnums come in handy.

Your right about the wildlife trust fund getting energy money, but that doesn't help with the Wyoming department of wildlife's budget woes.

This state isn't running in the red so I'm not sure why the money problem is so bad, How do other Western states do it?
I know some of the details on how they get funded but not all.

I do know that Colorado decided to raise tag prices on some inflationary index or something, so they didn't have to go through this stuff every 5 or ten years.
 
I agree with chose your weapon tags but not have a preimium because I like to archery hunt instead if killing(rifle). I believe in eliminating all general mule deer due to the population isn't supporting such a hunt.

We should not be paying wildlife damage claims to any landowner who charges trespass fees or outfits the ranch.

Another thing is I do not believe that non residents should be telling Wyoming how to manage our wildlife because everyone of you ##### about how horrable your fish and game manage your wildlife. If you don't like the way it's ran don't hunt here period.

I may not be happy with the way things are done but do not want input from people who think making it all about horns a quality hunt. I would rather see a higher increase in youth tags with youth only seasons,and a reduction in tags and a increase in land management to make the ecosystem better to support said animals. I enjoy going out and seeing many animals and not just the size of horns.

Today is went out to do my part in predator control and got 4 coyote and a bobcat, seen one 180" deer and half dozen small bucks and two dozen does. Countless antelope, it was a great day that I wish I could carry with my kids but unless something is done to improve habitat nothing will change reguardless of how much money the fish and game get.
 
I thought it would be interesting to look at financial figures if Wyo res and nonres license fees were increased by $10/tag. The 10 year average number of Wyo res elk, deer, and antelope tags sold are 60,000, 51,000, and 20,000 tags. If you multiply $10/tag times those numbers that's roughly $1,310,000. The 10 year average for Wyo nonres elk, deer, and antelope tags sold are 11,000, 34,000, and 24,000 tags. If multiplied by $10/tag it is $690,000.

I thought it would also be interesting to see exactly what the current Wyo nonres pref pt program brings to the table. Every nonres that applies for pref pts for antelope, deer, elk, moose, and sheep in Wyo contributes $195 in pref pt fees every year they apply and don't draw! This is a win-win deal for the WG&F and Wyoming wildlife because this is $ generated without 1 tag issued nor 1 critter harvested. No need to change game management strategies nor mess around with tag numbers.

The cost of nonres pref pts in 2013 was $50 for elk, $40 for deer, and $30 for antelope. There were 47,860 elk, 37,851 deer, and 39,647 antelope nonres applicants that applied for pref pts in 2013. If we multiply the cost/pref pt x applicants it equals $2,393,000 for elk, $1,514,040 for deer, and $1,189,410 for antelope. This is a grand total of $5,096,450 that Wyoming nonres contribute to the WG&F each year from elk, antelope, and deer pref pts! I'm not sure how many Wyo res apply for these species but imagine it would be a chunk of change that currently is not available to the WG&F. Regardless of what Buzz thinks pref pts brings to the table....pref pts are definitely a large pool of revenue!

Buzz, I'm not sure where you come up with "Wyoming is the most generous state in the West when it comes to NR license percentages." As Buzz so kindly pointed out OTC elk tags are issued....and in roughly 2/3rds of Colorado's elk units. In addition to OTC elk, Colo also offers 40% of deer, elk, and antelope tags in all but a handful of high demand units to NR. Buzz also mentioned that "Wyoming buries" CO and other state's generosity to NR's....come on now! If Wyo "buried" Colo in generosity to nonres they would offer general nonres elk and deer tags...but obviously they don't. The last time I checked Wyo special elk license was $1057 and Colo elk $596. Wyo special deer $552 verses Colo deer $351, NV deer $300, and NM deer $375. On average Wyo big game tags are a bit steep compared to elsewhere....especially the Wyo special draw prices.

Colo is a prime example of figuring out how much nonres contribute to the local and state economy. Small towns in Western Colo have figured out that nonres buy a lot of groceries, hotels, gear, gas, etc that contributes to their economy. I'm not saying that Colo Wildlife and Parks should be put on a pedestal but they do cater well to nonres and are aware how important nonres are to their program and the local economy.
As stated in another post 1 special nonrs elk tag price is equal in value to 20 res tags. If Wyo wants to shoot themselves in the foot they will cut nonres tag allocations. This may be a mood pt because I don't see how this will happen with the WG&F dreary current financial position. If the WG&F is smart they will look at success stories in the surrounding states and use these to their advantage!

I don't think you need to worry about me joining the bandwagon of Green-weenie, whacky weed guys...never have....and never will!
 
jims,

Your numbers arent accurate...by a mile.

Care to correct them before I, once again, make you look stupid?
 
Buzz,I got the pref pt, tag numbers, and license prices directly from the WG&F. I'll bite my lip and ignore your last statement.
 
You think this is accurate?

$2,393,000 for elk, $1,514,040 for deer, and $1,189,410 for antelope. This is a grand total of $5,096,450

I dont think so...how many NR's drew first choice elk, deer, and pronghorn tags last year?

Just curious.
 
jims,

You said, "Buzz also mentioned that "Wyoming buries" CO and other state's generosity to NR's....come on now!"

Come on now what?

Wyoming issued NR hunters 40,678 pronghorn tags in 2012...how many did CO offer to NR's?

Wyoming issued 69 bighorn sheep tags to NR's in 2012, how many did Colorado issue to NR's?

Wyoming issued 93 moose tags to NR's in 2012, how many did CO issue to NR's?

Wyoming issued 19 bison tags to NR's in 2012, how many did CO issue to NR's?

Wyoming issued NR's 400 black bear tags in 2012, how many did CO issue to NR's?

Wyoming also issued NR's 12,021 elk tags, and 25,935 deer tags.

You'll be hard pressed to show me where Colorado is anywhere near as generous with tags...they arent, and thats a fact.

Also, Wyomings regular priced tags are very comparable...across the board, with just about every other western state.

What make Wyomings tags a much better value for the investment, is the fact that the seasons, are many week, if not MONTHS, longer than any license sold to a NR in Colorado. Plus, unlike CO, hunters can hunt muzzleloader, archery, AND rifle with the same tag.

With a general elk tag, NR's can enjoy hunting in over 50 units...with archery seasons starting September 1...some rifle hunts in September, rifle hunts all through Oct. Nov. and even into December...all on the same tag.

Sure beats the chit out of picking one weapon and a 9 day season in Colorado...all day long, and crushes the opportunities found in Colorado.

So, yes, jims, Wyoming literally crushes the opportunities that other states provide NR's.
 
Buzz,
The WG&F gets $2,393,000 for elk, $1,514,040 for deer, and $1,189,410 for antelope pref pts and the grand total is $5,096,450. Buzz is correct that those that draw tags get a refund after they draw tags..which is actually a drop in the bucket compared to the totals. There were 1,619 special and 2851 regular elk tags drawn in limited units in 2012 that burned points. If you subtract off $223,500 from $2,393,000 this still leaves $2,169,500 that the WG&F received from elk pref pts. It's pretty easy to get deer and antelope values..which are substantial!

There is no mistaking it...pref pts are a great money maker for the WG&F! They received approximately $2,169,500 just from nonres elk pref pt applicants in 2012 that didn't draw limited elk tags nor shot an elk. I could find antelope plus deer but I think you get the picture.

I took a glimpse at Colo vs Wyo elk and deer tag numbers and budget....and came to the conclusion it's not even worth wasting my time arguing with Buzz. There were 86,453 nonres licenses sold in 2013 in Colo. Add up Buzz's totals and what do you come up with? According to Buzz Wyo issued 40,000ish antelope tags which is a bunch! I'm sure a large chunk of those are doe tags but I'm not complaining.

In 2012 Colo had a 1.8 BILLION dollar budget from the hunting and fishing industry. To top this off $38 million came from NONRESIDENT deer and elk hunters. ONLY $7.6 million came from Colo RESIDENTS. That kind of tells you how important NONRES are to Colo Wildlife and Parks funding! Hopefully Wyo pays attention to what works fairly well in Colo and surrounding states!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-14 AT 06:29PM (MST)[p] I think crushing might be pushing things a little.

From what I understand Colorado gives out over 100 thousand nonresident elk tags alone every year, 35% of limited entry deer tags is quite generous also, I don't know the exact numbers on those.

Colorado is actually a pretty generous state to nonresidents, Wyoming is also.

The short seasons in Colorado favor nonresidents as most of them can only make one scheduled trip hunting anyway, its the residents that get more benefit out of long seasons.
 
jims, I guess you dont want to discuss the sheep, pronghorn, moose, bison, bear, lion tags and the numbers Colorada gives NR compared to Wyoming?

I wonder why?

I also noticed you skirted the HUGE difference in opportunity via weapon choice and season length regarding how WY crushed CO in that comparison.

As per always, I have to correct your lies.
 
Buzz,
I'm not really interested in a grudge match if that is what you are looking for? It really isn't worth arguing with you because all of us already know your opinion. It is pretty obvious that you are totally against any type of change in Wyo!

Colo actually offers nonres an unlimited number of pronghorn archery, black bear, and mtn lion tags. It's pretty tough to beat the quality of moose in Colo....several B&C bulls are harvested every year. I really don't have time to check exact moose numbers but with the grizz and wolf populations in Wyo and expanding moose population in Colo it may not be long and Colo will have more moose tags than Wyo? Colo doesn't have a bison herd so no big deal there. Colo has a lot of sheep and mtn goat units scattered all over the state.

You are correct that Wyo offers long seasons and weapons of choice. That is probably one of many reasons why Colo has a 1.8 billion dollar hunting and fishing budget and Wyo is trying to figure out how they can afford stocking trout!

Wyo definitely "crushes" and I certainly continue to lie!
 
Buzz,

All the reasons you just listed are the same reason that Wyoming is broke. I love 70 day elk seasons I just don't think The G&F can afford them.
Wyoming offers 1 guy 60-70 days to hunt while Colorado offers 6 guys 7 days to hunt. Most non residents only make one trip anyway. Wyoming couldn't match the amount of tags CO gives just due to the gigantic number of elk in Colorado has but we could probably give double the permits if we split seasons and forced people to choose seasons.
We could also offer a premium tag and charge 1.5x what we charge now for the few that wish to take advantage of the full season.
It would also make for a more pleasant experience. Wyoming elk hunting for the most part isn't super crowded and by the 2nd week I mostly have the place to myself but that isn't the case with deer. On this years opener I saw 21 guys that had tackled the high country. I was 6 miles in on my mule. On Sept 29th the day I harvested my deer I saw 5 other hunters. The day before I saw 10+ hunters.
By day 6 in Colorado this year I had the unit I was hunting (1pt draw) to myself.
 
feduptwo,

Theres a reason why people choose to live and hunt in Wyoming. Its not to have the same season structure as Colorado, Utah, or Montana.

Wyoming hunters like opportunity, lots of choices where they hunt, and they like long seasons. Thats why people live here. The group I represent all feel the same way.

In case you forgot, Bowhunters of Wyoming attempted to get a set aside of archery only tags last session. Didnt make it out of committee.

I dont want 6-7 times more people pounding the resource, it cant take it. The more people with tags, the more pressure you put on the resource. It doesnt matter if its archery, ML, blowgun, spear, or rifle hunters...pressure is pressure.

People whine about wolves having such a huge impact, then turn around and say stupid chit like, "lets issue more archery tags, they dont impact the resource". Well...thats only thing, a steaming pile of BS. Archery hunters impact the resource. Same with ML hunters, and same with Rifle hunters.

The solutions we need are not going to be solved by issuing more tags. Issuing more tags will create over-crowding, more pressure on the resource, increased harvest, etc. etc.

The solutions that need to be actively pursued have to come from non traditional funding. Thats the direction that the WYGF, Governor, and the Wyoming Sportsmens Alliance is taking...and rightfully so.

If I liked CO's game management, I'd move there. I prefer Wyomings season structures.
 
Buzz,
It sounds like you are trying to represent "Wyoming" but it's pretty obvious you and that your group of hunters aren't interested bowhunting?
 
>Buzz,
>It sounds like you are trying
>to represent "Wyoming" but it's
>pretty obvious you and that
>your group of hunters aren't
>interested bowhunting?


A recent survey of Wyo hunters by the Wy G&F showed 74% DID NOT like the idea of 'Choose your weapon'. G&F won't be pursuing that idea anytime soon.
 
That is correct, and its also fair to note that archery hunters have a pile of opportunity in Wyoming.

They typically get at least 15-30+ more days to hunt...as well as the rifle portion of the hunts as well. They're not required to lay their archery gear down during general rifle hunts/seasons.

I dont blame Bowhunters of Wyoming for taking a shot at 10% of all the available tags in Wyoming last year. There was blood in the water and they went for it.

Greed cost them though.

Oh, and jims, I represent a cross section of hunters/anglers, archery, rifle, etc.

I wouldnt know a thing about archery hunting in Wyoming...

575.JPG
 
It's amazing that people keep coming up with tag and PP schemes thinking that will take care of this budget problem. It won't, and even if it did, then you are doing exactly what BuzzH stated and that is greatly hurting the resource that most of us want to protect! Alternative sources of funding, especially for nongame species, are the first thing necessary to get the G&F back on track so they can effectively manage all they are mandated by the Legislature.
 
Wyoming hunter surveys are a joke, I wonder how much money the state spends on survey after survey?
I have never seen a state have so many surveys
Then they ask loaded questions and expect answers.
Do you want bigger bucks? more bucks and longer seasons? less crowding? cheaper tags?

I believe there is something wrong with the way WGF gets input from hunters, something wrong with the way rules are implemented, and I think there is a disconnect somewhere along the line, kind of a messed up political system.

And by the way I would rather hunt Colorado for mule deer any day than Wyoming, that's why I save my money and every few years and travel to go muzzy hunting in the high country of Colorado.

They can pound the Salt River and Wyoming ranges with their crowded seasons and 1000 yard rifles all they want while im gone.

Another thing that bothers me is how they keep bugging me for the harvest reports every year, I get cards before the hunts over, then letters then more cards, WTH?

They want to cut costs? that's a great place to start, Check out how Nevada does it, they give a card out with each tag to save mailing costs, if a hunter doesn't send or Email their harvest report by a certain date they cannot apply for hunts the following year unless they pay a fee ($50 I believe)and return the report.
In guess Wyoming would have a survey on whether that approach would be acceptable or not, and of course 68% percent would say it wouldn't be.
 
Piper,

You sound like the type of guy that likes to b itch and thats as far as you ever get.

You also appear to be a guy thats content with letting others do your heavy lifting for you.

Set up a meeting with Director Talbott and express your concerns about the game surveys...hell, I'll jump on the conference call and support your complaints.

Or...is it just easier to whine on the 'net about the problems but never step up for the solution?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-14 AT 10:07AM (MST)[p]>Piper,
>
>You sound like the type of
>guy that likes to b
>itch and thats as far
>as you ever get.
>
>You also appear to be a
>guy thats content with letting
>others do your heavy lifting
>for you.
>
>Set up a meeting with Director
>Talbott and express your concerns
>about the game surveys...hell, I'll
>jump on the conference call
>and support your complaints.
>
>Or...is it just easier to whine
>on the 'net about the
>problems but never step up
>for the solution?


***I have thought with all the bitches about deer quality/quantity the last few years that the G&F should go to a mandatory online survey for all animals just like New Mexico and you either fill it out or you don't hunt again. It's simple and should be very cost effective to go to that method. The G&F currently farms their survey out and it is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of money to get letters and all kinds of cards, especially before the season you have your tag for is even over! I've added comments to that effect every time I get online and fill one out where they ask for any comments on your season. The problem with that is you're talking to the company and not the G&F decision makers. IMHO the G&F should have an email addy where something like that could be addressed. In their free time a lower salaried secretary could funnel the stuff to the appropriate person to be looked at and/or answered one way or the other.
 
Its winter time Buzz, I'm a little house bound.
Exactly how does one go about that? The regional director for G and F here has prodded me to go to Cheyenne for some of the commissioner meetings, and I do know the member from here.
 
Get rid of the landowner tags and put them into the drawing, increase resident costs a tad and split the seasons by weapon. I'd apply for archery tags all day long over the rifle tags if WY offered just archery tags for the units I like to hunt.

All these states try to make it so complicated. The NV system is far superior to all the others for one reason: simplicity! I don't even live in NV.
 
>Get rid of the landowner tags
>and put them into the
>drawing, increase resident costs a
>tad and split the seasons
>by weapon. I'd apply
>for archery tags all day
>long over the rifle tags
>if WY offered just archery
>tags for the units I
>like to hunt.
>
>All these states try to make
>it so complicated. The
>NV system is far superior
>to all the others for
>one reason: simplicity!
>I don't even live in
>NV.


***I doubt the landowner tags will ever go away completely and don't know that they should. However, IMHO that system needs to be totally revamped such that it takes more land to get one and the land should be suitable for each species before they get a tag for that animal. It is also a fact that by the time landowner tags are distributed that others have little chance to hunt in some units, which again IMHO is not fair if there is a lot of accessible public land there. It also sounds like if the survey that was mentioned earlier was done properly that the majority does not want separate weapon season tags. I have no idea how the survey was conducted and how many peple were in it to come up with that stat. Someone that's a resident and knows the scoop on that may chose to chime in and give us a clue.
 
>Get rid of the landowner tags
>and put them into the
>drawing, increase resident costs a
>tad and split the seasons
>by weapon. I'd apply
>for archery tags all day
>long over the rifle tags
>if WY offered just archery
>tags for the units I
>like to hunt.

Getting rid of landowner tags does nothing for revenue, as landowners buy their licenses too. Raising license fees is not an 'other funding mechanism' and until a majority of hunters are in favor it, weapon of choice is going nowhere.
 
>***I doubt the landowner tags will
>ever go away completely and
>don't know that they should.
> However, IMHO that system
>needs to be totally revamped
>such that it takes more
>land to get one and
>the land should be suitable
>for each species before they
>get a tag for that
>animal. It is also
>a fact that by the
>time landowner tags are distributed
>that others have little chance
>to hunt in some units,
>which again IMHO is not
>fair if there is a
>lot of accessible public land
>there. It also sounds
>like if the survey that
>was mentioned earlier was done
>properly that the majority does
>not want separate weapon season
>tags. I have no
>idea how the survey was
>conducted and how many peple
>were in it to come
>up with that stat.
>Someone that's a resident and
>knows the scoop on that
>may chose to chime in
>and give us a clue.
>
Mike, I know the survey was legit as it was discussed at the highest levels of the Department. I will see if I can find out more about it, as it included other things.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-14 AT 04:35PM (MST)[p]I've seen two things on this post that really perplex me.

First: +1 SoutherWyo for your thoughts on the late deer tags. The idea sounds all great for everyone because they can hunt deer when they are more easily accessed and more stupid. They are that big and old because they out-smarted every lazy hunter that couldn't find them when it was an even playing field.
Second part of that same idea is: oh we'll just let out a few tags. That wouldn't be bad, BUT then you throw in the 20+ governors/commisioners tags and one of those units gets hammered. Case in point: Area 82, had something around 12 type 1 tags but there were 25+ deer getting shot in the season every year due to all of the commissioners and governors tags! The age class has seen a huge hit. That is why that season no longer exists!!!!!!!

The other thing that I've seen on this topic is the idea of taking landowners tags away and not paying for damage done by wildlife if the landowner charges trespass fees or outfits it. EXACTLY where do you think most animals spend the winter? I can tell you that most (NOTICE I said most) come out of the high country and forest to the lower grounds that are primarily private. There are populations that stay on public ground all across the state, but I'm willing to bet a fair chunk head to private ground. If these landowners didn't allow wildlife on their property, how many do you think you would have to hunt? How much do you think the landowners would charge per AUM if the state's animals where on private property?

-NOTE: I do not hunt private land nor do I get landowners tags nor do I run an outfitting business nor do I guide. 99% of the time I hunt general and 100% of the time I hunt State/BLM/NFS ground.
 
jm77---I wasn't suggesting that the survey wasn't legit. I just wondered how people were chosen for it, how many, etc. For example, was it done by a random telephone or mail survey of a certain percentage of licensed resident hunters, by a show of hands at various G&F meetings that people can attend throughout the state or what.
 
Sorry from this simple minded person, but how about some archery only tags? Give NRs one hunt only. Generate the most $ wout huge success?
 
>jm77---I wasn't suggesting that the survey
>wasn't legit. I just
>wondered how people were chosen
>for it, how many, etc.
> For example, was it
>done by a random telephone
>or mail survey of a
>certain percentage of licensed resident
>hunters, by a show of
>hands at various G&F meetings
>that people can attend throughout
>the state or what.


"Someone that's a resident and
knows the scoop on that
may chose to chime in
and give us a clue."

Just trying to give you a clue, Mike, you were asking all the questions. I'm sure this survey was conducted by an independant firm or the G&F wouldn't use it for decision making. Trust me, I was told things would have to change a lot for the G&F to consider 'weapon of choice'.

By the way, a show of hands at a meeting is not legit.
 
jm77---I'm really not asking for a clue, am not doubting what you're saying, and I appreciate your help. What I would really like to know is if someone knows the exact way that a survey like that was done. Just the wording of something can change how some might respond, as well as the persons that were chosen for the survey if it wasn't done on a completely random basis. I do like that high percentage though because it's the way I would have answered if I was a resident and asked that question!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-14 AT 08:42PM (MST)[p]So now that we have settled that both WY and CO are good to NR maybe we can look at ways to fix the problem. It is the same problem seen in all state regardless... The cost to manage wildlife have increased. DNRs are expected to manage and do more than just ensure happy hunters. I truly think this is really a problem everywhere.

Sadly there is no magic bullet. There has to be creativity and at the same time increased fiscal responsibility...

I hate taxes but sadly they maybe the best bet... Recreation taxes for hotels and lodging etc. what about a small fee or tax added to vehicle registration, ohv etc.

Also snowmobile rentals, ski rentals, snow shoe rentals etc.

Last time I was in WY it seemed like everyone was driving ATVs all over town. To the store, work liquor store etc. has to be money there that can be fee and accessed only for wildlife....

I would also explore lottery and lottery funds. Colorado use their funds through GOCO and does a lot of outdoor projects....

What about a state income tax? Or fuel tax, etc...

The mother of all ideas dude... State funded pot farms in which the state of Wyoming sells pot to Colorado keeping all profits for wildlife.... I can just see big pot houses lining the highway by Laramie...

Oh I agree that we could raise the cost of the archery tag. And make the archery tag specifies specific. If I want to hunt lopes, elk and deer archery, then I can buy an archery tag for each. Keep the cost down so that even 1 weekend makes it worth it...
 
if Wyoming chose to spLit seasons all of the available tags would still be sold. especially the le tags. if you read my post I said that Wyoming would not be able to multiply the tags by 6 but they could probably double them. Even a increase of a 3rd would be a giant increase in reveune. Think outside the box and not like a government employee. There would be less demand on the resource not more. Archery hunters are way less successful. Once again there is a reason why no other states allow this your giving away the boat.
 
Think outside the box and not like a government employee

Exactly! They don't have a clue how hard it is to earn a living, and their #1 would be raise taxes. There is no other way to generate money in their mind!
 
>if Wyoming chose to spLit seasons
>all of the available tags
>would still be sold. especially
>the le tags. if you
>read my post I said
>that Wyoming would not be
>able to multiply the tags
>by 6 but they could
>probably double them. Even
>a increase of a 3rd
>would be a giant increase
>in reveune. Think outside
>the box and not like
>a government employee. There would
>be less demand on the
>resource not more. Archery
>hunters are way less successful.
> Once again there is
>a reason why no other
>states allow this your giving
>away the boat.

Lol... Not sure why you feel archery hunters are way less successful? The answer of just increasing tag numbers is not good at all!!! You separate out archery tags and you will get guys a lot more serious about archery hunting. Not to mention increased wounding loss and the effects that early pressure has on animals. For example there are several units in CO that are draw only because the elk will leave public lands during the archery....

You seem to be one thinking like a government employee... Pimp out the resource to the max selling every tag you can.

I am one of many archery hunter s who has my success rates over 80%..... So I am not certain that archery hunters kill fewer animals. In Colorado an archery hunter kills an elk usually 1 in every 7 years. All rifle tags combined cost the average is 1 in 5....
 
My first comment is I don't have a solution for the financial problems experienced by the Game and Fish in Wyoming. Solutions proposed include raising fees for tags and the like. Other solutions include non-traditional funding or alternative sources which is code for raising taxes in some form. I haven't heard a lot about Game and Fish cutting back on its outlay. That is what most of local government has had to do in Wyoming for the last 5 years.

Raising the price of tags, points, requiring a license, increasing tags etc. has been tried in numerous states with only some success. Idaho and Montana have a difficult time selling all their tags. And Idaho's requirement that you purchase a license before entering a draw doesn't do all that well. The key is at what level of increase in fees do you start losing your customers.

The tax increase ideas suggested include sales tax, motel tax, increase vehicle registration fees, lottery, state income tax, fuel tax, atv fees.

The sales tax in Wyoming varies by county with a majority vote required to increase it over the set rate of 4%. The legislature can of course raise the base rate. In Park County they have attempted to raise the sales tax in recent years to 5% with little success. In previous years, the citizens of Park County had approved a sales tax increase to 5% to build a new cop shop, swimming pools and libraries etc. Those proved to be somewhat of a boondoggle and have eliminated any appetite for higher sales tax on a local level. I don't know if the conservative legislature in Wyoming is in the mood for increasing the base rate by a 1/4 or 1/2 point for wildlife statewide but that may be a solution. I don't see it happening on a local level.

Parts of Wyoming already have a motel tax that varies from 2% to 4% for cities and counties. It generated over 13 million dollars in both 2012 and 2013. Would what is being proposed involve raising the motel tax base rate everywhere it currently exists, or making it statewide? I would think if you made it statewide you might raise enough to cover the Game and Fish shortfalls. Again, will a conservative legislature go for this? I don't know.

I don't think a fuel tax would work. The state went to that well last year and raised fuel tax 10 cents a gallon to fund highways and such. I can't see anyone proposing to do this again for fish and wildlife unless they take a small percentage of the new 10 cent a gallon tax and redirect it to game and fish and away from infrastructure. Again, I don't know how that would sell.

Raising vehicle registration fees is not likely to occur. Wyoming's vehicle registration fees are already high. I pay over $180 a year for a 7 yard old pickup with 120,000 miles on it. That will stay at that level until I get rid of the truck. They already have an off road fee for ATV's that I think is around $ 15.00 to $ 20.00 a year. That fee is supposed to go to increase and improve ATV trails in the counties where it is raised. It is seldom used for that. I think the administrative fees eat up most of this tax or fee. This fee is similar to the invasive species fee that game and fish has started charging. Most of that fee is used to put game and fish people with outhouses on the side of the road to stop and check boaters.

A lottery for fish and game might work. I just don't see the conservative legislature approving such a thing. I would vote for such a measure. To get such a lottery you would probably have to include money raised going to schools also. A new state income tax might work but again I really don't see the legislature in Wyoming approving such a thing. They have been resistant to this for years.

Something that hasn't been proposed in this post involves something I always thought was a good idea. Increase the property taxes being paid by large farms and ranches in the state who get sweetheart deals through agricultural exemptions in their property taxes. If they lease their lands to outfitters for hunting, take 20% or more from the money they receive for access. I also think that the game and fish should have a flat 10% tax on every guided hunt or fishing trip in Wyoming. On a sheep hunt, the state game and fish would receive revenue of up to $ 950.00 per hunt. On an average day of guided fishing that would be about $ 35 to $45. The USFS gets a cut on usage by outfitters of public land why not the game and fish. I can already hear the outfitters howl about this one. I can also hear the large landowners piss and moan about losing their sweetheart agricultural exemptions or having to share revenue from hunters.

My feeling is the state will make the game and fish sweat some more to insure they get rid of the waste. After that, it is anyone's guess. just sayin...
mh
 
Its not so much" thinking like a government employee, its just politics pure and simple, everything is awkward, slow, and cumbersome.

Wyoming doesn't have a good structure when it comes to changing rules and making laws that pertain to Game and fish.

It sounds like its all done through the legislature, there are no county advisory boards, everything has to be done through polls so to speak, via the constant public surveys.
Democracy like this can be sloppy.
 
More good discussion...

Mighthunter,

The WYG&F has taken alot of measures to reduce spending. What they havent done, is do a very good job of getting that out to the public.

Check here: http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wgfd-1000880.aspx

Take a look toward the bottom of the page...self explanatory, you'll find the cost reductions.

I also like some of your ideas, in regard to the outfitters paying some of the freight, something they've never done.

I also tend to agree with you on the conservative/teabaggery mentality that is infesting WY's legislature.

I believe that can be overcome a couple ways. The groundwork has already been established. The TRW committee took an absolute lecture from nearly 100 people from various wildlife groups. The message that those groups sent was not a "subtle" one. The G&F budget of 70-74 million is returning 1.1 billion in direct economic benefit.

I dont care how "conservative" or how much of a "teabagger" those at the legislature are...that rate of return on investment is sound policy/spending. In particular when they're currently only kicking in about 6 million from the general fund, of that 70ish million total, required to fund the G&F.

They arent going all out with their generousity of general funds to help manage the states 800 species of wildlife...and thats a fact.

As far as an increase in sales tax...if the Legislature isnt willing to see the value, and priority, that most Wyoming Citizens place on Wildlife in this state...take them out of the equation. The legislature DOES NOT have the pulse of its constituents, let alone the pulse of the Sportsmen in this State. If they dont want a tax increase...then we'll get it on the ballot and let the Citizens decide.

The Legislature in Missouri didnt "think" that the Citizens of that state would ever agree to a 1/8 cent sales tax to support their DNR/GF either. A ballot initiative passed, and handily. Missouri's GF department is one of the most "flush" agencies in the Nation. The citizens decided that their wildlife and its management was worth some investment.

While I cant speak for everyone, I'm over the bake-sale approach of tag pimping (super raffle, gov. tags, splitting archery/rifle tags, etc.) to fund the G&F.

Nearly everyone enjoys, and/or profits from abundant wildlife in this state. Its a sound investment for economic, social, aesthetic, and political reasons...wildlife needs, and further deserves, full funding.

Everyone needs to step up, not just sportsmen.
 
Piper
Wyo G&F actually has a very good method for making and changing regulation. Statute and regulation are two different things. The waters get real muddy when to much is done in statute.

Buzz
I was at a sportsman's meeting one time when a union official called one of our legislators a "teabagger". Now the legislator wasn't there, but that person who said that was straightened out right then. That's an offensive word and doesn't describe a person who belongs to the Tea Party.

You have a lot of knowledge about these issues and deserve a seat at the table talking about funding issues, but how far does that language get you when the legislators your trying to convince see your words. Enough said...
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-07-14 AT 11:54AM (MST)[p]Yep, MO got that 1/8 cent passed and permanently bailed out their DNR so that everyone, residents and NRs alike, puts money in the kitty. There is really no logical reason WY couldn't do the same the way wildlife and the outdoors benefits everyone in the state, whether living there permanently or just passing through on a hunt, vacation, etc. It seems so simple, but politics seems to always shoot itself in the foot because the big picture is never looked at like BuzzH mentioned.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-07-14 AT 11:21AM (MST)[p]jm77,

Point taken...although there needs to be a distinction between conservative and tea party. I personally dont find "teabagger" any more offensive than "obamacare"...panties get knotted up too easily.

I'm all about being fiscally conservative...but I'm light years away from anything the tea party stands for.
 
A ballot initiative is an alternative. It requires signatures from about 37,000 residents being a percentage of the voting population in the last election (2012). The deadline for an initiative on the ballot is late February 2014 for the November 2014 ballot. I don't see that happening in the next 40 days or so. This may be something that is pushed down the road if the legislature fails to act. Again, I don't know what appetite the legislature will have for any tax increases in the 2014 session.

I am also concerned that some serious increases in healthcare insurance costs may be on the horizon with the ACA. This could make the healthcare costs for Game and Fish employees and their families jump way up in 2014 and thereafter. I hope this doesn't happen, but I know that other state employees are in fear of this.

I think the State of Wyoming needs to get this right the first time when it goes for funding increases for Game and Fish. I don't think there is much appetite for a trickle approach as the problem continues to get worse. If this involves tax increases, get enough so that you don't have to revisit the problem for many years.

just sayin...
mh
 
Mightyhunter,

I think if the 2 bills pass that the TRW committee has introduced, theres no reason to ask the Legislature THIS session, to look at long-term funding. Plus, like you correctly stated, its just flat too late at this point.

The 2 bills will shore things up enough to get past 2014.

I think after this session, the WSA needs to sit down and get their chit together regarding long-term funding. That means making contact with, and trying to get the Legislature to understand that doing nothing for GF funding isnt going to work, and further, its not acceptable.

Governor Mead is on board, he wants a long-term solution found, and I hope that he appoints the blue-ribbon coalition like he mentioned in the meeting we had.

I think we try the Legislature route FIRST with any ideas we have for long-term funding. Who knows, maybe a moment of clarity will surprise everyone. If they dont want to play ball, then go after the ballot initiative.

I like your idea of making this a one-shot, do it right the first time, approach.

I couldnt agree more.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jan-07-14
>AT 11:21?AM (MST)
>
>jm77,
>
>Point taken...although there needs to be
>a distinction between conservative and
>tea party. I personally dont
>find "teabagger" any more offensive
>than "obamacare"...panties get knotted up
>too easily.
>
>I'm all about being fiscally conservative...but
>I'm light years away from
>anything the tea party stands
>for.


Buzz
Guess you don't know what teabagging is? Or maybe I didn't know Obamacare meant something sexual...
 
jm77,

I didnt fall off the turnip truck yesterday...well aware of the definition.

Tea Party supporter, or tea party candidate it is.

Like I said, alligator skin...I dont get offended easily and not sure why anyone else would.

Maybe the shoe fits a bit too well?
 
>jm77,
>
>I didnt fall off the turnip
>truck yesterday...well aware of the
>definition.
>
>Tea Party supporter, or tea party
>candidate it is.
>
>Like I said, alligator skin...I dont
>get offended easily and not
>sure why anyone else would.
>
>
>Maybe the shoe fits a bit
>too well?


Nah, sent the first pair back, then had to switch to sock liners so I didn't get over-heated.
 
jm77,

I was thinking more about the Legislator that got upset being called a TBer, with my smartass shoe fitting reference.

Wasnt directed at you in any way...sorry about that.

However, your reply definitely made me laugh...
 
Elks 96,

Apparently most elk hunters aren't as awesome as you. Give yourself another big pat on the back because your success is higher than most rifle success rates.
Wyoming doesn't publish success rates for elk hunts but NV and Utah does. Success rates are as follows
Nevada: Non-resident rifle 73% Non-resident archery 41%. Archery hunters are 32% less successful
Utah: rifle elk odds 79.1% Archery 33%. Archery hunters are 46% les successful.
Lots of tags left on the table with the same demand on the resource. If your running 80% success rate on your archery elk you would need to pick up a rifle why wouldn't you want more opportunity at the coveted tags.
The bottom line is the G&F should optimize all other funding options because it means more money for wildlife management.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-14 AT 09:44AM (MST)[p]So what your saying is that you would like to see WY decrease rifle hunting opportunities and increase archery opportunities? Yes I would be fine with that, but you are failing to see what makes the WY system so great. If people wanted to hunt the Colorado System or the Nevada system or the Utah system then they would hunt that system. Why are you so insistent that other systems are better?

The best part about WY and the reason that I and many others prefer to hunt there is the flexibility that the season structure provides. In Colorado people are stuck and with archery being the exceptions are stuck to 9 or less days of hunting. What happens if those days are too hot, too much snow, your wife pops out a kid, you eat bad Mexican food, blow a tire, etc. etc. etc.

Seriously keep your season structure. It is nice knowing that when I have a WY tag that I can go up archery season for some more cash. It is also nice knowing that if I miss 1 weekend I still get to hunt.

Simply put you take away options and force people into smaller groups and time frames the tag becomes less value able to people. Yes you could look at colorado and yes you could decide to pimp out your herd starting in August and spread hunting out over a full 3 months only allowing people to hunt a few days each, but trust you have things so good in WY I would hate for you to piss it away because selling more tags is the only way to fix your problem!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-09-14 AT 09:35AM (MST)[p]Couple points...and in all due respect.

Increasing the number of tags can create more problems than they're worth.

Splitting archery tags, and doubling down on tags will increase pressure on elk herds. That will, in turn, put double the pressure on the elk herds via archery hunters.

Lets take a look, and for arguement sake, lets use a unit with 100 tags as an example.

In this situation, you have some rifle hunters, some archery hunters, and some hunters that do both. Lets say 25 of the tags go to archery only guys, another 10 to guys that will do both.

The QUALITY of the experience will be very high for those 25-35 archery hunters. Very little pressure put on the resource as well.

Now, moving forward to rifle season, the same hunt will only have 65-75 hunters in the field. That will again create a higher quality experience and less pressure.

Double down on 100 archery only, and 100 rifle only tags...IMO, the only thing you've really doubled down on, is stupidity. The quality of the experience degrades for everyone via crowding, you double the pressure on the elk, and you likely kill wayyy over objective numbers. Even if archery hunters run 25-30 percent, the rifle hunters stay around 40%...you're nearly killing double the elk. Thats not correct management, any way you slice it.

The resource just cant stand it, you're now not managing on anything science based, but rather using the resource as strictly a funding mechanism.

Of course, theres also the ancillary "benefits" of increased elk harboring, increased leasing, and all the other fun stuff that goes with doubling permit numbers. (see Unit 7 as a prime example).

The Game and Fish absolutely SHOULD NOT optimize tag numbers as a funding mechanism.

The Game and Fish should, do what they are required by law, and that is to manage based on science, objective numbers, carrying capacity and the like.
 
I keep going back to the thought that the tag should cost enough to cover the cost of managing the game the tag is for. Non-game species should be covered under another revenue stream. All these games with special tags, raffle tags, equipment specific tags, late season tags, early season tags, youth tags, old people tags, feedground stamps, habitat stamps, etc. are gimmicks that will eventually fail. It reminds me of the post office. Instead of simply pricing a stamp to cover the costs of getting your letter to Florida they continue to pander to special interest groups and keep a stamp at what $0.43, all the while losing money. Everytime they talk about raising the price of a stamp AARP yells about grandma not being able to send a Christmas card to little Johnny. Sounds just like the guy that told me he couldn't afford a license increase of any kind and used the story of having to wrap his feet in bread bags because he couldn't afford boots. Is this the guy we should be basing prices around?

I talked with the husband of a co-worker at the local RMEF banquet last year that was against any price increase. He said he could not afford it. Two days later he bought a saddle from me for $200 because he decided to get his wife a horse. Now there is a cheap hobby to pick up.

For a resident hunter in Wyoming, and I imagine just about every other state, the tag is the cheapest part of hunting.
 
Buzz,

I'm not talking about 2x the same amount of elk tags they issue in Wyoming. I'm talking about taking roughly 20% of the rifle tags being converted to archery only and then utilizing the lower success rates that accompany archery hunting and issuing the difference in extra tags.
100 tags with a 70% rifle success rate =70 bulls being killed
100 tags with a 70% rifle success rate and 35% archery success rate =Rifle 56bulls+Archery 7bulls =63 total bulls being harvested. This is a net gain of 7 tags. If you assume the same 35% success on these additional tags you could add 2 more permits for a net gain of 9 licenses.
At least 20% of the elk licenses are already utilized by archery only hunters that will never make a additional trip with a rifle.
I looked at the non-resident type 1 special elk permits and if utilizing the above formula you could increase the NR special tags by 50.7 (same demand on resource). Its 54k in additional revenue. Plus a additional 10% in opportunity.
Buzz you can skew the numbers all you want there is a reason every other state does this and there is a reason that Wyoming is leading the pack as broke G&F agencies. This is one of the primary reasons
 
Elks 96,

I'm not advocating that we implement what Colorado does tit for tat. I'm saying split archery and rifle and adjust the tags based on the lower success rates and issue more permits.
If you did this you'd still have 30 day archery season and a 30 day rifle season for most limited entry hunts and a 55 day general rifle hunt.
The non residents that are coming to Wyoming to hunt aren't coming because they can hunt for 75 days there coming because that's the tag they draw that year. 95% of the non residents that put in for Wyoming also put in for at least one additional state besides the state they reside in. If the question was phrased do you want 10-20% better odds or do you want a 75+ day hunt when you draw the tag most people would take the better odds.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-12-14 AT 11:16AM (MST)[p]Feduptwo,

A couple things to keep in mind.

1. Wyoming isnt the only state that doesnt split archery/rifle tags. (See Montana).

2. Hunters in Wyoming do NOT want the tags split, jm77 provided that data.

3. The G&F should NOT manage the resource strictly based on maximizing opportunity or to maximize tag sales. Thats not correct management, its no longer about whats best for the resource, but what is best for profits and opportunity. Many times, those things are mutually exclusive. More often than not, they're mutually exclusive.

4. There are other ways to shore up the G&F budget without creating systems that the hunting public of Wyoming doesnt want. I can tell you that there isnt going to be a split in archery/rifle tags...it wont happen. It was tried last session and didnt get out of committee. It was proposed by B.O.W. and it failed...bigtime.

5. 54,000 isnt worth the effort, time, and problems that splitting archery/rifle tags will cause. Its PEANUTS, in the picture of the current G&F budget, and even more insignificant when looking at projected G&F budgets.

You can continue to "show" all the evidence you want and carry on about how great it would work. But, its a waste of my time and the idea simply doesnt have any legs. Any talk of an archery/rifle tag split will be DOA at the Committee level.

Just the way it is.

Time to move on with an idea that will work.
 
I really think we need to regroup and discuss alternate funding of the G&F separately from ideas concerning tag changes. No matter what tag changes might occur in the future, IMHO they would not come close to touching the funds needed to get the G&F back up to speed and in the black permanently.
 
All I'm saying if this was a private entity and it was in the red and sinking quickly they would be forced to find a way to streamline. If all their competitors were offering more product, better experience, and for the same price they would probably be forced to look at how their competitors were operating and more closely match how their competitors were operating.
If the price of their product was already the same or more than their competitors they probably couldn't raise their prices. Unfortunately govt agencies can't go bankrupt and reorganize with new forward thinking management like private industry. (unless the private industry is controlled by Unions who pollute the process and get bailouts)
This isn't a 54,000 line item on budget. Once you look at all the permits sold it's 100's of thousands of dollars. Its 10% more customers enjoying the experience. Its whole mountains to yourself and goes a long way into fixing the overcrowded hunting in Western Wyoming (which by the way is one of the most complained about problem in the hunter surveys). Its relieving draw odds without bad point systems.
Buzz your right it is not getting passed through the legislative session this year. Good news is the G&F commission can do it immediately with a stroke of a pen. No legislative action needed!!! Bad news is nay sayers like yourself will just continue to discredit any positive ?change? that could happen in Wyoming for the Status Quo.
 
Feduptwo---IMHO you can't run the G&F like a private company that's sole purpose is to make a profit by using the resource (animals) like it's a widget if that's what you're trying to say. Maybe I'm just not following along with what you're saying and if that's the case I apologize.
 
feduptwo,

The G&F isnt a private entity, it never has been, was never intended to be, and never will be.

Theres plenty of good reasons for that.

One of the major differences is that a private company does not have a GF Commission or the Legislature to deal with. Plus, a private company only has the focus of maximizing profit.

The G&F has a lot more to worry about. They have over 800 species to manage. They have landowners, outfitters, non-hunting public, hunter, anglers, enforcement, state laws, federal laws, etc. etc. etc. to worry about. Many things that a private org. doesnt have to worry about or answer to.

So, the first step you should make is to forget about the GF being a for profit entity...it was never designed to be. If it was, then every tag sold would go to the highest bidder, and/or be market driven. Management decisions would reflect that, and you, me, and every other Sportsmen of average means would be on the outside looking in. I'm thankful everyday that the North American Model is still alive and well.

The agency is bound by state law to Manage the States Wildlife Resources. Because of that, there are confines that the G&F, Legislature, and Sportsmen have to work within...no way around it.

I'm also not sure that the Commission would, or even could, seperate out archery/rifle tags. It would be really tough for them to ignore the survey that jm77 provided that 75%ish of the hunters in this state DO NOT support a tag split.

I admire your passion and your concern for at least coming up with an idea. I think healthy discussions and legitimate ideas are the way we move forward.

But, in this case, I think you're working against a stacked deck.

I've learned, through a lot of trial and error, that its just not worth working on ideas that are D.O.A.

I could talk all day long about how good of an idea splitting tags would be...but without Legislative, Commission, and G&F support...its a waste of time. Even a bigger waste of time when the vast majority of Sportsmen are against it.

I think our only way out of this mess is to really think outside the box. Shifting tags, increasing tags, increasing tag fees, season structures...it wont be enough to even keep up with inflationary costs. Plus, like I've said numerous times, you can only dip into the wallets of Sportsmen so many times before theres push-back. I think Sportsmen are tired of being the ONLY ones to step up for the benefit of our Wildlife Resources.

We need alternative, long-term funding sources...thats essentially what its come down to.

I do appreciate your comments...
 
Buzz,

I am fully aware the g&f is not a private enity and I'm also fully aware they never will be. My example was a analogy.

I also believe that you'll find if we survey public opinion on g&f fee increases you'll also find that upwards of 75% of wyoming residents oppose it. Its not stopping the g&f from seeking it anyway. Why is this? The answer is because it is needed. Would you support us to always poll the public before we make management decisions? We had 40 or so sportsman in a meeting a year ago asking the g&f to cut 102 deer tags. They chose to ignore what the public overwhelming supported in favor for the retarded status quo.
The right decision is to split archery and rifle tags to maximize revenue, increase quality of hunt, increase opportunity, and improve draw odds even if it is the unpopular idea.
Don't worry I know we won't make the right choice. Well choose to keep full throttle on the same retarded path with the same mediocracy we've grown acustom too. Nothing a buerocracy hates more than change.
Also don't pollute this discussion with the " North American model of wildlife" 80% of western states maximize revenue and opportunity by splitting archery and rifle tags. Maximizing opportunity doesnt violate the above stated model. In fact one could argue that by potentially decreasing the amount of needed fee increase and keeping hunting more affordable it could strengthen it.
 
The groups within the Wyoming Sportsmens Alliance polled their memberships regarding fee increases and found over whelming support of fee increases. The groups in the alliance represent about 40,000 Wyoming Sportsmen.

Thats the message we'll be packing to the Legislature this session on the 2 bills being proposed by the TRW Committee.

Also, I dont agree that we have to be content with the status quo. I honestly just dont think splitting archery/rifle tags will happen anytime soon. There just flat isnt much support for it, and clearly not enough to ever make it happen. We need to come up with ideas that have legs and have a chance of passing.

It will be interesting to see if Governor Mead appoints his blue ribbon coalition to come up with some long term funding solutions. I'm cautiously optimistic that we can make some progress on that.

Maximizing profits from tag sales has put several states in the chit. Montana has crushed the deer populations in that state via selling multiple doe tags that the resource couldnt take. Same with many of the midwestern States that are finding out even whitetails are not an unlimited cash cow.

My point is that correct management can not happen via maximizing tag sales in most cases.
 
>The groups within the Wyoming Sportsmens
>Alliance polled their memberships regarding
>fee increases and found over
>whelming support of fee increases.
>The groups in the alliance
>represent about 40,000 Wyoming Sportsmen.
>
>
>Thats the message we'll be packing
>to the Legislature this session
>on the 2 bills being
>proposed by the TRW Committee.
>
>
>Also, I dont agree that we
>have to be content with
>the status quo. I honestly
>just dont think splitting archery/rifle
>tags will happen anytime soon.
>There just flat isnt much
>support for it, and clearly
>not enough to ever make
>it happen. We need to
>come up with ideas that
>have legs and have a
>chance of passing.
>
>It will be interesting to see
>if Governor Mead appoints his
>blue ribbon coalition to come
>up with some long term
>funding solutions. I'm cautiously optimistic
>that we can make some
>progress on that.
>
>Maximizing profits from tag sales has
>put several states in the
>chit. Montana has crushed the
>deer populations in that state
>via selling multiple doe tags
>that the resource couldnt take.
>Same with many of the
>midwestern States that are finding
>out even whitetails are not
>an unlimited cash cow.
>
>My point is that correct management
>can not happen via maximizing
>tag sales in most cases.
>

Totally agree that maximizing tag sales is not a wildlife management strategy but just a short sighted way to sell more tags. More pressure on the animals AKA separate archery tags can't be great for the animals. When G&F departments put selling tags above sound management we all suffer.
Montana and Washington sportsmen to name a couple are now suffering thanks to their G&F departments issuing waaaayy too many tags in their misguided attempts to raise revenues.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-14-14 AT 07:51PM (MST)[p]There is something to be said about splitting seasons and primitive weapon hunts, fedupto is right about giving out a few more tags and not hurting the resource.
I realize Wyoming won't change, so Im just going to blow smoke about creative management.

I think about Colorado, every few years or so I go on a high country deer muzzy hunt over there, never have killed a smoker, but I have seen them, they are there and we always have the place all to ourselves.
I attribute the lack of crowding to the way Colorado splits seasons and separates weapon hunts, I attribute the quality of the animals to the way Colorado controls the resource by not allowing long range weapon hunts when the deer are all bunched up in the open high country.
I like the way Colorado also allows rifle hunters a choice of late season hunts, It allows youths and recreational hunters a chance at real quality animals.

To me there was nothing better than to see a 17 year old kid take the highest scoring buck in over 20 years.
 
I'm not advocating putting any additional demand on the resource. I'm saying is bank on the fact that Archery hunters are significantly less successful, same demand on resource.
You are absolutely nuts if you believe the general population of Wyoming supports raising the cost of hunting permits. John Emmerich stated that when they were selling the idea of additional funding last year the public overwhelming was not in favor of funding increase. I was in a conversation at lunch the other with 12 or so Wyoming hunters. When I suggested that I supported a responsible fee increase I was flooded with negative comments some adamantly opposed a increase.
Maybe if Montana would have maximized
revenue by splitting archery/rifle permits they wouldn't of had to hunt deer past what the resource could handle.
Another major problem in Montana is they have raised their nr prices past what most non residents are willing to pay. You dont have to look at montana for overhunting It happens in ha102 every year.
 
Sportsmen didnt think programs would be cut if the license fee increases failed.

They were wrong.

Many have now taken the blinders off, a lot has changed since last session. When they see the impacts of less funding, paper hats tend to fly off even the most pointy of heads.

We'll see how it goes with the 2 bills. Theres going to be some major effort spent trying to get them passed.

If nothing is done about the budget this session...there will be even more severe impacts to programs.

I'd not want to be the Legislature that is responsible for not funding an agency that spends 70 million and returns 1.1 billion in direct economic benefit to the State.

I think its also fair to note that the hook and bullet crowd...they vote, and they vote often.
 
Something should pass because their is a dire need. Still the public won't support it. Its just a good thing that the majority of Wyoming is Apathetic and won't pay attention. They will remain opposed but put no effort in stopping it. Same happened with the gas tax last year. A 10% increase will put Wyoming's license fees at some of the highest for any western state for residents. Currently we are 4th highest for elk and 4th highest for deer (this is not including in habitat stamp & and elk feed ground stamp). We already have some of the highest non resident costs.
After this budget crisis we need to start looking at ways to improve things like quality of hunts, opportunity, draw odds, or really even habitat.
Hopefully we'll have enough funds to cut 102 deer tags by 100 and restore a trophy deer area in Wyoming? Especially when 85% of Sweetwater county supports it.
 
Feduptwo,
I had no idea that a 10% increase would push the resident fees to one of the highest!
There could be a 400-500% increase on the sheep, moose and goat tags just to bring them in line with what I'm accustomed to seeing for resident fees. The current fee for those critters is double-dirt cheap!
Zeke
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-16-14 AT 01:41PM (MST)[p]I'm not going to look up other states resident fees because I don't plan on hunting any of them and could care less, but IMHO when compared to NR rates the WY resident rates are dirt cheap and pretty ridiculous. Here are the current prices:

Elk------------------$52
Cow/Calf-------------$43
Deer-----------------$38
Doe/Fawn Deer--------$22
Antelope-------------$33
Doe/Fawn Antelope----$22

Add those all up and if you buy every one of those licenses OTC as leftovers it totals $210. A 10% increase would only total $21 to shoot six animals. A NR antelope license alone costs $272, so a 10% increase on just that one tag for us would be $27.20. That IMHO is not a fair way of doing things to have the NRs keep funding the G&F for residents and why alternative funding needs to be found and implemented ASAP. I'll pay whatever it takes to hunt Wyoming because hunting is my passion and I have the money to afford it. Pity the family that's already struggling to make ends meet and wants to do an outstate hunt in Wyoming or anywhere else the way all states have set up their NR fees. I guess I could look at it and say that it will help eliminate my competition, but I just don't look at things that way.
 
Topgun,

You know everything I know but I Googled resident rates comparison. Found a spreadsheet from 2012 that compared resident rates We are 4th out of the commonly thought of western states (i tossed ca and ak from the comparsion)resident rates for both deer and elk. That did not includ habitat stamp nor elk feed ground stamp. If you added this it took us to 3rd for elk and we remained 4th for deer.
Resident rates are right in line most western states. We are on the high side of the average.
Cheap compared to nonresident yes. Cheap compared to other states not hardly.
I totally agree with sheep and moose and have been a strong advocate for a 200% increase for both species for resident permits. I also believe there should be a price difference between le and general accompanied by a 100% increase for type 1 permits. And for the record I'm not opposed to a responsible resident increase..
 
feduptwo---I was strictly commenting on resident vs NR rates in Wyoming, but all the states do the same thing and that is rely on NRs to fund their departments with 10 times or more the rates of a resident. It could be that the Wyoming resident rates are like you say because of the low population, but that would just be a guess on my part. When yuo have time would you please expound on who exactly you're talking about when you say there should be a 100% increase for Type 1 permits!
 
LE tag fees, license not included

AZ Elk, $148
AZ Deer, $58
AZ Antelope, $103

NM Elk, $91
NM Deer, $42
NM Antelope, $61

UT Elk, $280
UT deer, $80
UT Antelope, $55
 
"Add those all up and if you buy every one of those licenses OTC as leftovers it totals $210. A 10% increase would only total $21 to shoot six animals. A NR antelope license alone costs $272, so a 10% increase on just that one tag for us would be $27.20. That IMHO is not a fair way of doing things to have the NRs keep funding the G&F for residents and why alternative funding needs to be found and implemented ASAP."

Top, you sure do a lot of belly aching when it comes to Wyoming license fee's. Sounds a lot like some of them democrats crying about the rich not paying enough taxes. I bet you voted for Obama?

By the way, I support a significantly higher fee's for residents...
 
>Top, you sure do a lot
>of belly aching when it
>comes to Wyoming license fee's.
> Sounds a lot like
>some of them democrats crying
>about the rich not paying
>enough taxes. I bet
>you voted for Obama?
>
>By the way, I support a
>significantly higher fee's for residents...

***No need for wisecracks and you'd lose you azz on that bet buddy boy. I'm about as far from a Dem Lib as you can get and BO is right in the running for the worst Pres. in the history of this country! It also isn't belly aching, but rather merely facts that we're discussing. It just so happens that we're in the Wyoming Forum and talking about the Wyoming G&F budget. In case you can't comprehend English, I've stated that ALL the states are the same way trying to rely on NRs to support their budgets. Wyoming just happens to be right up there near, if not at the top, when you figure 80% of their fees are pulled from NRs. That disproportionate level can't continue much longer or IMHO Wyoming is going to have a train wreck similar to other states. If many NRs are priced out and can't make it out to Wyoming, the G&F will start having to run ads like Idaho and Montana begging to get hunters to come back to their states. It's great you say you support significantly higher resident fees, but may I ask what that word means to you? You could double most of your resident fees and you'd still be getting one heck of a deal with the resources Wyoming has to offer! Most of the time when you come on a thread it's with a "me me me" attitude similar to the rest of the way our society is today. I'm not that way and am very similar to BuzzH in that I'm trying to right what I feel is wrong with a broken fee structure even though I can easily afford the NR tag monies and will keep hunting until I can't do it physically any more, regardless of what they go up to. The money for me in particular has nothing to do with my attitude, so please give it a rest.
 

Similar threads

M
Changes in Regulation
Replies
4
Views
795
ICMDEER
ICMDEER
M
Cody Region Meetings 2024
Replies
12
Views
852
nfh
nfh
Buck300
Non-Res application question
Replies
4
Views
419
Homer
Homer

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

FC1B0585-CF12-48D5-AFD4-6AB663BDDEF7.jpeg
IMG_3815.PNG
IMG_1266 (1)u.jpg
PXL_20230910_185526434~2.jpg
4D54DBDE-B105-4F45-9328-F78A7F1BBCAB.jpg
D2F40716-0C78-4BA4-BC32-4CF47B9CCDF0.jpeg
7EE181D2-A857-4649-B8DA-2A626C70EF62.jpeg
16669.jpeg
studeer.jpeg
IMG_0006.JPG
IMG_0489.jpeg
DSCN4254.JPG

Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Badger Creek Outfitters

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

Urge 2 Hunt

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

J & J Outfitters

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


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses
Back
Top Bottom