Proposed License Fee Increases

S

SMOKESTICK

Active Member
Messages
852
This might be the last time you can comment on the Proposed Wyoming G&F License Fee Increases. This Friday, in Lander, WY the Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee will be taking public comments pertaining to this action. The following link is for an article which was recently published in the Casper Star Tribune:
http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreati...557a-89f1-a4484e6ad0a5.html?comment_form=true
You might want to take a few minutes to express your thoughts, comments, etc. as the G&F Department is stating that most everyone supports these increases. That is not what I have heard nor what I continue to hear. Might be worth your time to submit comments and contact your respective legislators as it appears that only WY SFW and its members are offering any resistance to this proposal.
For the record, WY SFW might support a license fee increase later; however, we believe more should be done to address additional cost cutting measures and improve efficiencies where applicable before a license increase is awarded.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-08-12 AT 12:55PM (MST)[p]I would agree with you that the department should look hard within to increase efficiency before raising tag and license costs, but it seems (according to the article you posted) they have already done so. What kind of oversite (audits) are there for the department? What have been the results of any audits?

Where would SFWWYO suggest cutbacks be made?

It's a tough situation all around, no doubt.


www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
The last meeting they broadcast via the net. The head of the DNr was answering questions and when asked the question on what steps they had taken to reduce cost, he answered with the following:

1. They had to follow the same budget reduction the rest of the state departments had to in terms of their general budget. This was a 3% reduction. However when it was looked at, it was easy to see this was nothing since only a small chunk of the money comes from the general fund the rest from lic. sales so they really only did a 3% reduction on a very small percentage of their budget so the full reduction was nothing.

2. They implemented the ability to purchase and apply on line. That saved them money.

They did not address any reduction in force, reduction in benefits, reductions in equipment, they did not show anyways in which they are saving money now that they would have spent before.

In the meeting one citizen had called to get his boat inspected for zebra mussels. In the next 1/2 day 4 different people in 4 different vehicles showed up to inspect....

Really even when pushed in an open meeting they gave absolutely no answers...
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-09-12 AT 06:11AM (MST)[p]Here is what I read on the budget cuts....

"The FY2013 Commission Budget (95% of the Department's overall budget that covers costs for most Department Programs) was cut 3% to ensure our user fee revenues would cover expenditures through at least FY2014 to give the Dept time to obtain additional funding through a license fee adjustment, indexing and big game super raffle in 2013 effective January 1 2014. The General Fund budget that is appropriated by the legislature (5% of the Department overall budget that covers only the costs of five programs, Vet Services, Sensitive/Nongame Species, Sage Grouse, Wolves, and Aquatic Invasive Species) has a proposed 8% cut for FY2014 per direction of Governor Mead. It is important to keep these two budget sources separate, the Commission Budget is user fee funded with oversight by the Commission. The General Fund budget the Commission receives each biennium has to be approved and appropriated by the Legislature for very specific programs. The Commission has much less oversight on use of the General Fund budget. "

Looks like a 3% overall and an 8% in the general funded programs to me.
 
You guys are closer to it than I am but it seems like the increase is a foregone conclusion. These "hearings" and "public input sessions" are almost always just a pacifier. I have mixed emotions about the increase. I'm probably looking at it the wrong way but the increase should increase the special drawing odds. I'll cut something else out of my budget and maybe get to hunt more often or get a better tag. The bad thing is that some can't do that and they'll just quit going. So our numbers will drop. we'll have less clout, etc... I worry about what the long -term future holds for our outdoor heritage.
 
Add to it that NR like my self are over a barrel with points right now. I can't just walk away since I have over 5 years in points. So I either give up the money on points or keep applying or just go blow my point on a general/easy to get tag. I used to hunt WY like every other year, but between the points and the tag increases it will mean my trips will be fewer and further apart.Either way my income has decreased with the current economy and as a result I already have less to spend on tags, then tag price increase etc. Just frustrating, I know it is coming, but WY used to be a deal for me, now with its increases I can easily say that ID/MT/UT are all great options and I really need to evaluate what I am getting for my few extra $.

The other thing that got me was how they were bragging on success rates when compared to other states.... I feel this was a totally skewed approach. In Colorado I can buy 2 elk tags. 1 list A and 1 list be. In Wyoming most of the tags I see or atleast several of them are any elk, any antelope, any deer. When you have tags that are set up this way you should have much higher success. It is kind of like comparing apples to oranges. I may only fill my Bull tag once every 3 years here, but I have been 100% with my cow tags over the last 12.

Just thoughts, I will again submit comments, but it really is just to make me feel good as I am sure they are set. I do hope a super tag process can work and I can get an opportunity/chance at that tag for $30 or less....
 
I sent comments supporting price increases as did several hunting buddies. If you want to run a better than average thing into the ground, then start poor boying and mickey mousing things. For a quasi gov't entity, they do far better job than most. One thing mentioned was, if revenue isn't increased access programs could be reduced or maybe eliminated. You take away access, some guys will quit hunting and revenues will tank further. If so, the G&F will be forced to implement steeper rate hikes or eliminate other programs. Pick yer poison...
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-09-12 AT 09:23AM (MST)[p]I bet when all is said and done the increase in tag fees will only apply to non-residents.
 
It may very well be the non-residents will bare the brunt of increases. Things will only get worse for game agencies across the states if the sequestration of PR funds remains in effect: millions of dollars will be held back and slow/stop many programs. Hunters and fishermen have always born the bulk of responsibility of wildlife conservation and it would be a shame if that ended or was cut back significantly. We are all facing financial woes, and as much as we dislike feeding government agencies, what choices are on the table other than paying higher prices for tags/licenses?

Wyoming could turn to Utah's model and auction off oodles of premium tags, but I bet that wouldn't sit well with you folks either. Like I said, tough situation all around.


www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
Triple_BB made a reference to access programs being cut, and I've also read the same in news articles. Access Yes is funded by donations from hunters. My question is how does not raising license fees effect a progam paid for by donations?

I understand the G&F has to pay people to contact landowners and enroll the lands, but they didn't hire these people specifically for that reason.

Also, why does the G&F have houses that wardens live in? If there is such a gigantic financial issue why not sell the houses, and make their employees buy their own? I can see supplementing housing for people who live in Jackson Hole, but that's it.
 
From what I've heard they've hired people to manage the access programs. The money paid to landowners supposedly comes from donations. The costs inside the agency to run the programs probably don't. Have you looked at how many hundreds of thousands of acres are enrolled across the state. I'd think subsidized housing is warranted. Wardens are paid something like $3500/month to start. Given most need a masters degree and a lot of specialized training, that's ain't much. And the houses they live in look more like cracker boxes...
 
So lets see the average game and fish starting salary is the same as a 1st year teach, is higher than the LEO expected starting salary, is almost identical to that of a person starting in either the state government or county government etc. $42,000 a year is a very liveable salary when you consider they get vehicles and now on top of it houses for free? Do you expect all teachers to get housing? Cops?

Also the increase in tags will result in a decrease of hunters. Look at MT right now they have tons of extra tags since they increased the prices. Add to it that O stayed in office and thing look pretty bleak. Ultimately the access programs are nice, but in the vast majority of the state I do not see access as an issue. Granted it is nice to see easier routes into some areas, but I have yet to see many places where a guy with a little work couldn't get access via public land.

I love how they cite inflation etc. but when you look at the true situation we have not had meaning full inflation... In fact we have seen a deflation effect in our economy on nearly every single product except fuel...

I am glad your for it, but increased cost result in fewer hunters which will mean lower support for hunting overall.
 
>From what I've heard they've hired
>people to manage the access
>programs. The money paid
>to landowners supposedly comes from
>donations. The costs inside
>the agency to run the
>programs probably don't. Have
>you looked at how many
>hundreds of thousands of acres
>are enrolled across the state.
> I'd think subsidized housing
>is warranted. Wardens are
>paid something like $3500/month to
>start. Given most need
>a masters degree and a
>lot of specialized training, that's
>ain't much. And the
>houses they live in look
>more like cracker boxes...

No one is holding a gun to their head and making them work for WYO F&G. To me it is a toss up, Low wage and a great job or Higher wage and and a "job".
 
Well, write the G&F and let them know you want housing stripped. If those wardens have such great jobs and benefits, you'd think cops and teachers would be knocking down the G&F doors trying to fill those positions.

As far as fewer hunters go, they haven't reached the tipping point and aren't even close. Demand will still far exceed supply. Comparing Montana or Idaho to Wyoming's system is apples and oranges.

Of course if the non rezi's don't like it, don't hunt here. No one's holding a gun to their heads. Or has that phrase already been used...
 
Dont worry...while you guys are busy whining like spoiled children...and WYSFW is busy fueling the whine fest, there will be guys like me going to and working through the legislature to offer meaningful ways to address the problem.

I agree that always asking sportsmen, in particular NR's, to fund the bulk of the shortfall is wrong.

But its absolutely idiotic and irresponsible to ask the G&F to make cutbacks to their staff. There is 50 total wardens in the entire state...which ones need to be cut?

Also, on the accessyes program, the state is divided up into several regions with wardens responsible for each region. It makes sense, as typically they have great working relationships with the landowners in their areas. It does create a lot of additional work for the wardens though. But, as is the case 99% of the time, they pull double duty to be cost effective and efficient. But, WYSFW would like them to do more with less...even though they're already doing a whole lot more with a whole lot less and have been for over a decade.

In personal conversations with the warden/accessyes coordinator in my area, they have wayyy more landowners interested in enrolling lands than they do money to fund increased access.

My wife and I donate $100 each to the accessyes program each year...I wonder how much WYSFW donates? I bet very little, if anything, and I also bet we'll never see proof of how much they donate either.

Oh, and I'm going to work on 2 fronts trying to come up with a permanent source of funding:

1. a 1/8th to 1/4 cent sales tax implemented with funding going directly to wildlife.

2. Getting funds diverted from the mineral trust to wildlife.

Sportsmen have paid the freight for all wildlife management to this point, its time for everyone else to step up to help maintain the great strides we've made.

Contact your state legislature and dont look to WYSFW for answers. In true fashion they'd rather raise the hysteria level and spread propaganda to drum up support for the Utah Model of wildlife commercialization/privatization...as per usual.

Get involved, but offer up and work toward a permanent solution, dont just b itch.
 
Buzz you and I have had this conversation before. Well I still disagree that the dollars should come from the general fund. Oh and by the way my private sector company is going through a reduction in force (120 jobs out of 1400). So as of Jan 1 I will most likely be not be employed. How many government employees are being showen the door?
 
OK so I did and have offered up different suggestion. I am not just sitting around just bitchin, I am however one of only a few NR on here speaking up about the situation. Of course I am told that if I do not like it to go elsewhere. Which is exactly what will happen if I no longer see WY as worth my money. I am simply stating that the economies at work here is not just about what WY is doing but all states in regards to the situation. I already know hunters who once visited WY are no longer going just due to increased fuel cost. If you that increased cost with higher tag fees etc. It just will not work for even more people. The NR are over a barrel. Once i cash in my points I will probably not build points again for WY. I might be a better situation but probably not.

BuzzH. I have offered up several suggestions to the state in my post/emails. One of the biggest issues I have is the amount of disturbance and negative impacts that energy exploration/development have on wildlife. While they may do voluntary items, that in no way offsets the amount of negative impacts the industry is having. Take for instance the latest big pipeline to Wamsutter. It is nearly a 100 yards wide and easily stretches 50 miles. So far of the areas I have visited on that line the ground can only be described as a haven for holgean and Russian thistle. I would think that a very small energy tax/property tax etc. would make a huge difference.

I beleive that also looking at a statewide lodging tax/receration tax could help. In Colorado we have a state statute that only allows the tag prices to fluctuate within a certain percent of CPI. This means the tag cost may constantly be changing but never more so than related good/products.

In Wyoming you have 1,923,224 millon cubic feet of natural gas leaving your state annually. that is 1,923,224,000,000,000 cubic feet. If there was even a really small cost percubic foot thathe comapnies paid to the DNR it would add up fast. at 1 thousandth of a cent charged per cubic foot this would add up to a net of 19,232,240. That is looking at a small charge of .0000001 dollars per cubic foot...

Just a thought. What about a fuel tax?

Add those types of measures in with a handful of supertag drawings (not auctions, but raffles that everyday hunters can afford), maybe look at other revenue sources(a lottery fund?) Powerball? Heck a state ran marijuana farm to supply Colorado with it now legal possession laws... etc. There are lots of options, just I do not believe that only answer should always be to make people pay more...

But there needs to be a close look at how the agency is spending money and if there is cost to be saved. In the past couple years everytime I log onto the GandF website it has been completely redone and looks totally different.

Also while there may only be 50 officers there are also a ton of others paid by the agency. Where does that come into play? I have like all the DNR officers I have met in WY and think they are hardworking and honest, but I am never satisfied with any agency or business stating they can not find cost saving measures.
 
FYI....Not all wardens get G&Fish housing. Last year G&Fish housing in Cody and Meeteesee were sold.

from the "Heartland of Wyoming"
 
Kilbuc,

Thanks for the info. I did see a G&F house in Dubois this year. The one I know about in Casper is no longer posted WY G&F, so maybe it was also sold. Maybe, they just took the sign down.
 
Here is a copy of WY SFW's Position Statement:

WY SFW Position Statement ? License Fee Increase

November 9, 2012


WY SFW proclaims that our members have expressed strong opposition to the proposed license fee increases and that they are desirous of looking first for cost cutting measures and increasing program efficiencies, where appropriate, throughout the WY Game & Fish Department (WY G&F).

Furthermore, our members are desirous that Wyoming move cautiously as we explore increasing license fees as they remain concerned over what they are observing in other western states; primarily Idaho & Montana, which increased license fees in 2009 and are now having difficulty selling significant portions of their allocated non-resident big game licenses.

WY SFW desires at this time to reiterate that we did support the license fee increases in 2007; however, we stated at that time our members were concerned about increasing cost of hunting licenses, especially non-resident fees. It remains one of our biggest concerns; that we are considering raising license fees during tough economic times when a very real potential exists that these license fees will discourage hunters and anglers from participation, perhaps to the point that they develop other outdoor interests and activities which can be more economically achieved and will no longer contribute to wildlife management efforts.

WY SFW understands how dependent we are upon non-resident hunters & anglers for funding of the WY G&F. Our members fully understand the consequences of losing this critical funding base and we believe that currently the risks are too high with our struggling economy.

WY SFW suggests it is more important to explore new partnerships designed to help cut operational costs of the WY G&F while maintaining current hunting, fishing and trapping programs. It remains our belief that increasing license fees has too great of a potential to negatively impact future license sales and will most likely discourage the enrollment of new hunters into our ranks.

WY SFW expresses our concern that this will hamper future hunting and angling recruitment and retention efforts and also runs counter the directive of the WY G&F; Protect the Wildlife, Serve the People.

WY SFW expresses concern over the potential that an increase in license fees will only further reduce overall license sales, possibly causing some hunters/anglers to leave the sport all together.

WY SFW believes other issues have not been adequately addressed. All discussions have primarily focused simply on the need for increased license fees and not enough time or thought has been devoted to actually understanding the problems the WY G&F faces; furthermore, WY SFW openly declares that the proposed license fee increases do not address the three main issues identified by the G&F as cause for such action; increased healthcare costs, increased fuel costs and inflation.

WY SFW has concluded that now is not the time to increase license fees on hunters and anglers. Furthermore, WY SFW has concluded that the proposed license fee increase will have a significant and negative impact on the number of licenses sold and could be potentially more harmful in the long run for the WY G&F and the perpetuation of our sport.

WY SFW declares that an increase in license fees is synonymous with a tax increase; however, it is a tax increase on a very limited class of people. WY SFW is resolved to oppose any increase during these tough economic times and prefers that more be done to look at improving or leveraging cost cutting or savings to the WY G&F.

WY SFW declares our support and dedication to assisting the WY G&F in efforts to increase funding via new programs such as the proposed ?super raffle?. Furthermore, WY SFW desires to explore new programs which can be implemented within the WY G&F that can increase efficiencies of existing programs without increasing costs and perhaps even reduce costs to those programs.

WY SFW desires to raise the question of the intent of state statutes which obligate the WY G&F to manage all wildlife within the state and ask the Joint TRW Committee and other state legislators to clarify priorities which should be used in determining how to best utilize and protect sportsmen?s interests and investments in wildlife conservation efforts which will result in sustained and historic uses of those wildlife resources. Furthermore, WY SFW requests that a special task force be created; being comprised of Wyoming hunters & anglers (historic users and primary funding source for the WY G&F), TRW Committee Members and the WY G&F, to explore more in depth, the problems which are causing the budget shortfalls. Furthermore, this task force will explore partnerships which can cut current costs or more efficiently produce the desired outcomes thus enabling the WY G&F to fully achieve their directive in Protecting Wildlife and Serving the People.

WY SFW recognizes that this will force the WY G&F Budget to be discussed during a budget session and that it will require 2/3 majority for any non-budget bill to pass; however, WY SFW believes that is probably more appropriate as we are discussing the WY G&F Budget.

WY SFW urges all of our members to contact their state legislators and let them know directly how you feel about proposed license fee increases and that you support WY SFW?s position statement. If you do not know how to contact your state legislator, I would suggest that you visit http://legisweb.state.wy.us/LSOWEB/Default.aspx to access the Wyoming State Legislative web site. Various links are provided to help you identify your respective Representative & Senator as well as obtain their specific contact information.

WY SFW asks all others which support our position to contact their respective Wyoming State Legislators as the comment period for the Wyoming Game & Fish department has now closed. If you are a non-resident hunter which agrees with our position, WY SFW would also ask that you provide me with your emails in support of our position & I will ensure that Wyoming State Legislators hear your concerns.

Respectfully,



Robert A. Wharff
Executive Director
WY SFW
[email protected]
 
I am not worried BuzzH, nor am I whining. Unlike you though, I have been at every meeting since this discussion started and I have not seen you at any of them.

Why is it "absolutely idiotic and irresponsible to ask the G&F to make cutbacks to their staff. There is 50 total wardens in the entire state...which ones need to be cut?"

Do you even know how many employees they employ? What has been the growth rate for the Department over the last decade?

When it costs the G&F $23/bird and the private market can provide them for $8/bird something is wrong. How many other programs exist where the G&F is paying 3X the going rate?

At today's meeting the Joint TRW Committee approved the license fee increases and the annual indexing bill; however, it was far from a unanimous vote. In talking with many of the legislators, several vote in favor of the bill in order to allow the entire legislative body the opportunity to consider it. Having said that, I have had several individuals and some have stated here that it is a done deal. This is in fact an inaccurate statement; however, it can gain strength if sportsmen fail to take action & contact their legislators.

If the license fees are increased and non-resident hunters don't show up (look at Idaho & Montana), who will bail out the Wyoming G&F Department? With natural gas prices in the tank and coal production significantly reduced, primary revenue sources for the state will be lower. It feels like a race towards the bottom with only one goal in mind; changing the North American Model of Wildlife Management from that of a user pay system to one which is funded thru general tax dollars. Don't believe me? All eyes should be on Idaho as I believe they will be the first to see their state wildlife management agency in such financial distress that non-traditional funding sources will be obligated to save it. Once that happens, hunters & anglers will have an obligated partner(s) which would prefer to see hunting and fishing both eliminated.

WY SFW will oppose any effort that moves Wyoming away from our current traditional model of user pay funding.

It appears to me BuzzH that you are the one attempting to smear WY SFW, raise the hysteria level and spread propaganda. At least WY SFW has shown up and is trying to ensure that cost cutting measures are implemented and program efficiency is reviewed. Sounds to me that you are perfectly fine with continual growth of government and suppression of the average guy. Guess it pays to be on the dole for the government and living off the backs of the little people.

However, you did get one thing right: "Get involved, but offer up and work toward a permanent solution, dont just b itch."
 
Bob,

Simple question for you...Does Wyoming SFW support a Utah style system (conservation tags, expo tags, landowner tags, etc.)to raise money for the G&F?
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-09-12 AT 09:30PM (MST)[p]"Guess it pays to be on the dole for the government and living off the backs of the little people."

That is funny stuff from SFW. The Utah chapter is given expo tags and conservation tags. Money from the "the government living off the backs of the little people".

Sorry Bob but that is a little funny.
 
I don't like it, but I'll pay it. 99% of us will and they know it.















Stay thirsty my friends
 
Hey Smokestick, everytime you come on here it's to push your SFW agenda? You throw something out there then sit back and see what the majority has to say. "ONLY SFW and its members are offering any resistence to this proposal"? Really? I laugh when you say, "SFW might support a license increase later, however, WE believe more should be done to address cost cutting measures". Since SFW doesn't support it now, you want all to jump in when YOU think it's time? I'm glad you bring up important issues, but for some reason when it's you bringing them up, it makes me wonder if it's good for sportsman, or SFW. You have supported issues even when it's a non-SFW issue. How about that open carry Casper City Council issue? Or the corner jumping issue. SPORTSMAN/Fish/Wildlife!!! You were more worried about landowners then what your organization stands for, sportsman, on corner jumping. Question? Are you/were you an outfitter or guide?

I don't mind the tag increase, I'm going to hunt regardless. What I would like to see is more management. Our herds are in bad shape. Hell, I didn't even buy a general tag this year because it's a waste of money. How much money are they losing because of people like me? If the hunting is great people will buy a tag no matter what the cost. How much do people pay for landowner tags in places like Colorado? They don't buy those tags because the hunting is bad. I do agree GnF should start looking at cutting costs, but how will some of those cuts affect sportsman? I also agree paying for GnF housing is B.S. The tag increase is coming no matter if you like it or not. Pay or stay home.
 
Utah400Elk,

Simple answer; no. However, along with every other group which has shown up to the meetings, WY SFW has supported the "super raffle".

I keep trying to get people to understand that WY SFW established the Wyoming Wildlife & Natural Resource Trust to fund conservation efforts in our state. The conservation/expo system is not needed here as we found another way to generate conservation dollars.

I believe the landowner coupon program is out of date and have had some discussions about the current landowner program with a few legislators. This program seems out of date as well; however, nothing has been proposed nor is in the works.

Friday, the legislator did pass a bill which will repeal the requirement that successful hunters which filled the tag on state or federal lands needed to mail in the landowner coupon to the G&F Department.
 
Bob,

Do you or SFW Wyoming support a Utah, New Mexico, or Colorado style land owner system? Does SFW Wyoming believe, like Don Peay, that the idea of public ownership of wildlife needs to be revisited? As I am a simple person, a simple answer works best for me thanks.
 
grosventrehunter,

I guess if you consider informing sportsmen pushing "WY SFW's" agenda, then I am guilty as charged.

I presented our position statement for a few reasons:

1-Information for those which are not members of our organization,
2-To report back to those which have provided in put on monstermuley's when I have asked for their comments, even though I assume most are not members of WY SFW,
3-Because I know that this issue is much larger than one group can tackle,
4-Our heritage is under attack and most are already admitting defeat,
5-Sportsmen need to understand that we are not defeated but someone needs to lead that fight.

At the meeting Friday, there were a couple individuals which testified in opposition to these fee increases; however, a few individuals and all other non-government organizations stated their support. The Deputy Director claimed that every group or individual initially had sticker shock but once they were informed, their opposition switched to supporting this proposal. If you attended any of the meetings and still have concern or opposition, your voice was not represented. WY SFW had someone at almost every meeting so I know that attendance was really low. Most sportsmen are like you, grosventrehunter, and think there is nothing that can be done.

The purpose of this post is to inform sportsmen, not members of WY SFW alone, that this debate is far from over. Do with this information what you want. I have not told any one the position they should take nor will I. I see my role as to represent the membership of WY SFW and to inform others of our reasoning for that position. I do the same thing with our legislators as well as other elected officials.

For the record, I have spoken with anyone in cammo since this idea of license fee increase was presented in June. Not one person has supported it, but several believe the decision is already made. If you want to fight, the time is now. If you want to roll over and admit defeat, that is also one of your options, if you want to support it, that is also an option.

Additionally, if we are able to find and implement cost cutting measures and/or increase efficiencies, but they are not sufficient enough to meet the essential programs of the G&F Department, we may still need to increase license fees.

The Department has cut 3% from their budget but I am trying to learn where those cuts took place. WY SFW simply believes that this issue is being fast-tracked at a time when we need to be more cautious. The economic uncertainty in Wyoming is high and will more than likely be prolonged with the direction our Country is headed.

When the public runs out of money what are our options?
 
Utah400Elk,

You present a very complicated question and ask for a simple response.

All I can say is that WY SFW does not look at other states for our own solutions. We identify issues our members wish to address or are obligated to address because no one else seems to be addressing our issues/concerns, formulate a goal or action plan and implement it.

Be more specific in regards to the style of land owner system as I am not familiar enough with New Mexico or Colorado. I believe Utah has more than one style of land owner system.
 
Bob,

It's a very simple question, Does Wyoming SFW support a system where landowners are given state owned tags to sell to whomever they want? The other question you didn't address is, does Wyoming SFW agree with Don Peay that the public ownership of wildlife should be revisited? Two very simple questions. Also since Wyoming SFW mebership dictates your stance where did the Wyoming SFW membership stand on the idea that half the nonresident tags should be given to outfitters?
 
Utah400Elk,

You are getting off point.

WY SFW has not supported transferable licenses.

I didn't answer your question about Don because I have never heard Don make that statement or anything similar to it.

I have never heard of any proposal where half the non-resident tags should have been given to outfitters.

If you want to talk further give me a call; otherwise, I am going to assume you are simply distracting the post away from the point of discussion it was intended for.

Let me know and I will pm you my office number.
 
While I may not enthusiastically embrace the fee increase I do understand that states are facing budget shortfalls all across the west, some more than others.
What I'd like to see is for Wyoming to get rid of the rediculous requirement that non-residents have a guide in wilderness areas. If the state is going to allow me to apply for and pay for a license let me hunt as I wish where ever that license is valid.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-10-12 AT 10:56AM (MST)[p]County Commissioners approve all county department budgets. State Legislators and Governor have oversight on the state budget. The Governor is already cutting 8% from all state budgets, which ironically doesn't apply to the G&F budget. Except, the small general funding provided. Who oversees the WY G&F budget? What have they cut during these hard economic times? Or, do they just threaten eliminating access programs to bully us into agreeing with their price increases?
 
i love hunting wyoming and will continue to do so,if i have to moonlight on the weekends i will do so to hunt wyoming ,as a non resident it gets old carrying the brunt
of the hunting fees,but i like to play so i gotta pay.
 
Bob,

You know what they say about people who "assume" don't ya? What you have said in the past is relevant to this discussion. That is as simple as it can be. It lets people know who you are. Go ahead and PM me your number and I will give you a call.

However, just to point out to those who don't know what Wyoming SFW and Bob Wharff stand for, please look at these threads:

http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...thread&om=6058&forum=DCForumID5&archive=yes#8

In this thread Wyoming SFW puts there support behind a nonresident tag set aside. Was the Wyoming SFW membership in support of this idea?

You and I have even gone back in forth on this topic:

http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...read&om=1588&forum=DCForumID35&archive=yes#16

This is the thread where we discussed the proposal for nonresident tags being given to outfitters! For you to say
"I have never heard of any proposal where half the non-resident tags should have been given to outfitters." is simply not true or you have a terible memory!

And SFW's Don Peay on ownership of wildlife (for you to Bob)

http://www.adn.com/2012/03/03/2350508/private-hunting-rights-weighed.html

and another on MM.

http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b..._thread&om=19150&forum=DCForumID5&archive=yes

Bob,

Please read up on "the Dons" ideas and let me know where Wyoming SFW stands on this issue.

Before people put their support behind Bob Wharff and Wyoming SFW I think they should know the past. Not trying to distract, just trying to pit a little perspective into this debate :)

So two simple questions, who do you and SFW Wyoming think owns the wildlife? Do you (you or SFW Wyoming) or will you in the future support giving landowners tags to sell?
 
Utah400Elk,

This is taken directly from your first link:

The following is SFW WY's position statement regarding what was presented to our Board in June:

SFW WY supports efforts to stabilize our outfitting industry by working to resolve issues dealing specifically with non-resident license allocations. SFW WY believes that it is absolutely necessary to resolve this issue in such a fashion as to protect Wyoming?s hunting heritage. Protecting our hunting heritage includes our outfitting heritage as well. Wyoming should support efforts to improve tourism by increasing the ability of our non-resident guests to better plan for their next Great Wyoming Adventure. Taking measures to stabilize the boom ?vs.- bust cycle that now takes place in the outfitting industry will greatly improve the outcome for many of our non-residents hunters and enhance their outdoor experiences in Wyoming.

You are correct in that this debate has already taken place. Nowhere does this position statement state our support for outfitter set aside licenses. The text clearly states our position and it was to stabilize our outfitting industry.

Your second link provides the following:

Utah400Elk (563 posts) Jun-27-11, 06:53 PM (MST)
17. "RE: How many resident hunters..................."

Smokestick:
When I was a Utah resident, I remember Wyoming SFW supporting a proposal to set 1/2 of non-resident tags aside for the non-residents who use an outfitter. Is my memory wrong? I can do a search on MM for the thread if that helps? You also say SFW Wyoming is not involved in any other state's decision when it comes to their wildlife? Then why do you try and defend Utah's Expo Tags? Again, I came from an SFW state and I hope Wyoming SFW stays the way it is, nothing more than a side note in a GREAT state!

As everyone can see, it was you that mentioned a proposal to set 1/2 of the non-resident tags aside for non-residents who use an outfitter. And yes, it appears to me that your memory is wrong.

Your third link leads to an article written by someone I don't know but the article makes inferences which I question. You are entitled to your own interpretation but the only direct quotes I see credited to Don are as follows: "We understand the North American model where wildlife belongs to the people, but we're also seeing dramatic reductions in game populations in the western United States under that model," he said.

And then later on another quote: "When wildlife is a very highly valued asset, people want more of it and they'll invest additional funds to make sure it's abundant," Peay said.

Your fourth link provides another section taken from what appears to be the same article. If you understand writing principles, you can see where the author sums up his interpretation of what Don Peay said but did you notice no quotes?

Both WY SFW as well as myself believes that wildlife belongs to the public and that the state holds management of our resources for our benefit(s). Most know that as public trust doctrine.

Your attacks on me and WY SFW are unfounded and a distraction from the point of this thread. Please return the discussions to the purpose of this thread; proposed license fee increases.
 
+1 on this idea/suggestion....

"1. a 1/8th to 1/4 cent sales tax implemented with funding going directly to wildlife.

2. Getting funds diverted from the mineral trust to wildlife.

Sportsmen have paid the freight for all wildlife management to this point, its time for everyone else to step up to help maintain the great strides we've made."

Robb
 
Bob,

Thanks for the PM. I am always worried about any issue being pushed by SFW. I am always afraid there is a SFW angle. That simple.

When you said you had never heard of a proposal to give half the nonresdient tags to outfitters that is simply not true. The thread shows we and several othes have talked aboutt his... "I have never heard of any proposal where half the non-resident tags should have been given to outfitters" Really?

You have said that SFW Wyoming's position was to stabilize the outfitter industry. To anybody reading this thread...The proposal that SFW Wyoming put their support behind was a plan to take 2900 tags out of the 7200 nonresident tags to be put into an outfitter only pool. To me that is is a set aside.

I am very familiar with the public trust doctrine. If the paper is misleading about what Don said.. can you ask him to come onto MM and clafify his position on public ownership ofwillife? Also will you tell us on MM where SFW Wyoming stand on transferable landowner tags?

Now back to it...These topics are on point! These are other funding sources that have been previously brought up that I think will be brought up again as a way to cover the short fall.

I am fearful that should I throw my support behind a solution to the Wyoming G&F budget problems I would later find out the solution is boiled down to a massive increase in tag fees for both residents and nonresidents or more of a Utah style ststem (landowner tags, something similar to CWMU and more wealth tags). The devil is in the details. I would much rather pay higher tag fees than see the Utah style system move into Wyoming.

I do support both the idea of a 1/8th to 1/4 cent sales tax implemented with funding going directly to wildlife and or Getting funds diverted from the mineral trust to wildlife.
 
WYO G&F have stated that they have adequate funds to exist as is until 2015. This (asking for increases now) is a move to increase fees and funding for the agency while bypassing the legislative process that all other agencies in the state must follow. Wyoming has a budget session every other year and 2013 is not a budget year for the legislature. I understand that a much smaller percentage of their budget comes through the legislature but from those who purchase licenses and pay the other fees that they are allowed to assess. I am of the opinion that they should wait until the 2014 budget session and go through the process like everyone else for their budget requests.

IF there were to be a change in the sales taxes, the mineral trust fund, or any other general revenue fund they would have to wait until the budget session for these changes anyway. Currently they state that they "manage" over 800 species of wildlife in Wyoming. Yet only about 100 of them are hunted or fished for. Seems like it is time to ask those millions of others who enjoy this wildlife to pitch in to cover the costs. I can see why so many environmentalists would love to see sportsmen pay more for a license, they get to ride a little longer on our coattails while they sue the agency to protect things like the preble mouse and other such wildlife. However, when these concerns are thrown into the legislative hopper and their funding levels placed up against things like schools, roads, bridges, local governments and etc., wildlife may not come out the top priority that we would like it to be. That is the downside of giving the legislature more control of their budget.

They could reduce costs associated with healthcare and retirement if they placed their staff in the same pools with the thousands of other state employees-at least I think they are separate now. I could be wrong as I often am. And, the state provides some housing for those who manage some of the state parks so I guess the G&F would not be much different than these employees.

All this being said, it would be a great side benefit if the G&f actually listened and responded to views and ideas expressed with this issue or any other. I am tired of expressing views, attending meetings and then have them say thanks a lot for your input. We'll let you know what WE decide to do.
 
Smokestick,

You're talking in circles there bud.

You're asking for a permanent budget solution without outside funding of some sort....and at the same time asking to not increase license fees and ask sportsmen to once again take up the slack.

I'd like to hear your ideas on just HTF thats possible. You're not going to be able to make up the projected budget shortfalls via cost savings. Cant happen and it wont happen.

The reason that the WYG&F staff has increased slightly over the last decade is because of all the additional species, projects, etc. that they are now required to manage. Its not as simple as just managing "them there deer, elk, and antelope".

Further, the reason you didnt see me at any of the meetings is because I was the ONLY sportsmen in the entire town of Laramie that showed up for the last round of license fee increases. It was myself, a warden, and a front desk staff member...I didnt make the drive to Cheyenne. I provided written comments and also talked in length with the warden at the Laramie Regional Office. I had the floor, as like I said, I was the ONE person who actually showed up.

The bottom line is that a lot of businesses and individuals either enjoy and/or profit from Wyomings Wildlife. I dont find it unreasonable to ask Motel owners, tourists, wildlife watchers, store owners, gas station owners, etc. to help with the funding of wildlife via a sales tax. I'm also not paranoid about giving some of those folks a seat at the table, they arent out to end hunting, its a fuggin' cash cow for them. Plus, it wouldnt be much different than most states Wildlife commissions now...which are comprised of retired sheriffs, real-estate agents, ranchers, farmers, outfitters, etc.

It also makes sense to use money from the mineral trust as the extraction of oil, gas, uranium, etc. is negatively impacting wildlife and wildlife habitat, causing the need for EA's and EIS's, etc. etc. etc.

No more free lunch for either.

I'm eager to hear your ideas as well as WYSFW's ideas to find permanent, and long-term solutions to the projected shortfalls in funding without asking the Sportsmen to once again pay all the freight.

I've a feeling I'll be waiting for a long time for the ideas...
 
BuzzH,

I am not talking in circles at all. It is really simple, first things first.

WY SFW believes that cost cutting/saving measures need to be reviewed and that efficiencies need to either be established or improved. When the G&F openly admits that it costs them $23/bird to operate the pheasant program and birds can be purchased in the market for $8/bird, something is wrong. How many other programs exist wherein the G&F is spending 3X the market rate?

Our members believe that it makes perfect sense to review their budget first, identify programs which need to be trimmed, identify non-essential programs that can be delayed until the uncertainty of Wyoming's economy has changed and increase efficiencies in programs which are inefficient.

Once that has been done, perhaps license fees will still need to be increased but until such time sportsmen are within their rights to demand that no increases are awarded until this occurs.

In the meantime, we should be discussing other means whereby the G&F can increase revenue without increasing fees beyond what a person on an average or lower income can afford.

WY SFW did not suggest the Super Raffle but we support it as presented. While the Wyoming Wildlife Magazine wins all kinds of awards it is losing money for the G&F. They hold it out as something that is very valuable in that it allows them to get their message out and to inform the public. When I first moved to Wyoming, I subscribed; however, it didn't take long for me to get tired of the G&F magazines continual vilification of sportsmen to cancel my subscription. The G&F message can be delivered without the costs.

Another suggestion has been to simplify our proclamation to reduce its size and/or begin selling advertisements to defray the costs associated with it production & distribution.

I do not like the landowner licensing system. Furthermore, the landowner coupon program is outdated and in some ways duplicated by the hunter management & walk in access programs. I do like access programs that exist in other states and see them as being more cost effective than our current programs.

WY SFW has already suggested that the G&F should look at ways to work with local producers of pheasants to increase output & reduce costs, thereby increasing efficiencies within the pheasant program.

WY SFW continues to push for more to be done to restore mule deer & pronghorn populations. Habitat is one factor; however, there are other things which can be done to rein in & reduce the number of predators on the landscape. Mule deer & pronghorn use to be the bread & butter of the Department. More should be done to keep the budget in line with these essential species and the Department should not be allowed to grow beyond their ability to be sustained by hunters, anglers & trappers. Sportsmen should not be treated simply as an ATM for wildlife management. Furthermore, sportsmen should proceed with caution as we are told to crawl into bed with all wildlife groups to provide funding for our state wildlife agencies. Not all wildlife groups have goals that are similar enough to maintain our current North American Model of Wildlife Management/Conservation. Those groups which are pushing for this alliance, also welcomed the introduction of wolves and continue to oppose delisting of wolves and grizzly bears. Even the most simple sportsman should be able to see through this charade and be able to understand how the dynamics will change.
 
Smokestick:

Appreciate your explanations and ideas. Can you enlighten me on this "Super Raffle" and what it entails? I'm not familiar with it. Also, what did you mean by the G&F publication "vilifying" sportsmen? Never read the mag so not sure what you are referring to. Thanks.


www.unitedwildlifecooperative.org
 
Smoke, I've seen quite a few times where yer always talking about what yer members want or support. From this point forward, could you refer to yer members as the silent minority? When was the last time one of yer "members" was on here showing some solidarity? Its like yer a one man show. Given how divisive your group is, you'd think there'd be someone willing to cover yer back.

Just wondering if any of these theories might apply on why we never hear from anyone in the silent minority: they're weak spined, they can't type, they don't exist, or there's a gag order in place? It seems like you or SFW takes a beating on almost everything you chime in on. It can't be a good feeling to be the Obama of the hunting world...
 
Yeah Smoke, your group has no solidarity if they don't come onto MM and take their cyber beatings.
 
Just throwing a couple ideas out there:

1. Offer archery ONLY tags. With the low success rates you can make lots of tag available with little impact on the game numbers. Its great that currently tag holder can hunt a month of archery, then also hunt the rifle seasons on the same tag. Just make them separate so folks need to pick one.
2. Make high demand tags (usually limited entry) cost more $$$. Similar to how New Mexico does there tags. Obviously the general tags arent just as desireable as the LE tags.

The main issue I've seen with Idaho and Montana and their issues with having unsold tags, and hence a loss of revenue, is that non residents dont feel they get a quality hunt on the general tags. Its not the LE tags that go unsold, its just the general tags. The states allow the residents basically an OTC tag at low cost, but the nonresidents have a quota and a high cost. If they want to sell all the NR tags they need a quality hunt, which may mean either lots of animals, low hunter competition, or just a cheap tag. I know many residents wont like to hear this but at some point some of the general areas need quotas set for the residents. Its piss poor management of game to admit the herds are down, cut the NR tag allocation, but still give residents free reign. Herds aren't really getting any better.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-12 AT 07:55PM (MST)[p]>Just throwing a couple ideas out
>there:
>
>1. Offer archery ONLY tags. With
>the low success rates you
>can make lots of tag
>available with little impact on
>the game numbers. Its great
>that currently tag holder can
>hunt a month of archery,
>then also hunt the rifle
>seasons on the same tag.
>Just make them separate so
>folks need to pick one.
>
>2. Make high demand tags (usually
>limited entry) cost more $$$.
>Similar to how New Mexico
>does there tags. Obviously the
>general tags arent just as
>desireable as the LE tags.
>
>
>The main issue I've seen with
>Idaho and Montana and their
>issues with having unsold tags,
>and hence a loss of
>revenue, is that non residents
>dont feel they get a
>quality hunt on the general
>tags. Its not the LE
>tags that go unsold, its
>just the general tags. The
>states allow the residents basically
>an OTC tag at low
>cost, but the nonresidents have
>a quota and a high
>cost. If they want to
>sell all the NR tags
>they need a quality hunt,
>which may mean either lots
>of animals, low hunter competition,
>or just a cheap tag.
>I know many residents wont
>like to hear this but
>at some point some of
>the general areas need quotas
>set for the residents. Its
>piss poor management of game
>to admit the herds are
>down, cut the NR tag
>allocation, but still give residents
>free reign. Herds aren't really
>getting any better.

NO! NO! The best part about getting a WY tag is being able to pay the additional archery tag and hunting it as well. Force me to choose and I will only end up with one and not the other. In the current set up the only reason I hunt WY is to hunt for a couple weekends archery then go back for rifle season. Get rid of the archery option I will just stick to CO. Also they make more money by selling the archery as addition.

In all honesty the demand will not be there to drive sales of the archery only tags. All archers know the reason to hunt WY is for the fact you can then get a chance at rifle.

Also by only raising the prices of quality tags you really do not increase revenue. Those of us putting in for quality tags ultimately sacrifice buying lesser quality tags to hold out for the quality tag. So if I want a certain elk unit that takes 8 points to draw I will only hold out for that until and not buy a single tag for 8 years. No matter what you will not get away with raising tag prices enough to offset my lack of buying lesser tags.
 
So seriously I can see a pretty strong SFW presence here in the forums. But what they are asking for is exactly what I would expect. A true review of everything. Look at cost saving measures, look at personnel reductions, look at inefficiencies, etc. Fix those issues and then determine the needed changes.

I am not sure why SFW here is so frowned upon. I have been a supporting member of the WY SFW on and off since the wolves have became such an issue. Looking at the WY section and the UT section there are some very key differences between the 2. While I may not be aware of everything I have found the SFW to be very responsive to my concerns as a nonresident and they have (at least in the wolf issue) represented my take on the situation.

Ultimately, I understand your skepticism and the fear of the WY system getting all messed up like Utahs. But so far I have not really seen many similarities between the 2 as they seem to be facing different issues with different systems etc.

I do support the need for completely reviewing the departments budget and operations. I do support looking at cost saving measures, outsourcing projects (birds) to private business, etc.

I am not willing to accept that the DNR has done everything it can to help the situation. Instead I get answers that only grow my mistrust.

Why does the web page need completely redesigned every time i visit it?

I do not like a general tax as it will allow the door open to anti hunting groups to have more say over the management of wildlife.
 
Yeah Bob;I'm with G14-let's get some of those members on here so they can get their thrashin'!!
Seriously-I can see why they don't.You can take that any way you want.
I do like BUZZY's mineral tax suggestion...
But really,when you get right down to it,if a better product was produced,maybe you could charge more for it...and people would stand in line to pay.Much like any other commodity.
 
Nontypical,

There has been a common response when I have asked sportsmen what they thought about the current proposed license fee increases. Almost everyone of those I have spoken with had made some reference about being asked to pay more for less. It is one more aspect within the G&F which I hope we can address. It does appear to many, that the over all quality of mule deer and elk has decreased. Don't know if it is real or imagined, but I have told the G&F that they have a definite perception issue that needs to be addressed.

You also point out a problem with SFW members posting on MM. Most just want to talk hunting and share the love for the sport. Seems some on MM, want nothing more than to see the destruction of SFW, even if it means that only environmental groups, which masquerade and pretend to represent sportsmen interests would remain, but I digress.

Thanks for the comments and discussions. Headed to Rocks Springs today for G&F Commission meetings.
 
Smokestick,

You didnt answer any questions...you talked in circles again.

I agree with you that there is never anything wrong with looking at being more effective/efficient with your dollars. Agree 100%.

But, if you believe that cost savings are going to bail out the G&F projected shortfall...you have your head in the sand. Its simple third grade math, it wont be even close to enough.

Additional funds are going to be needed, in particular if you're really serious about some of the things you suggest (doing more for mule deer, etc.). That chit costs money...and lots of it.

WYSFW is not addressing the issue, dancing around it as if you're "showing us" something.

You've failed to offer up a single solution to the long-term funding problems that ARE going to face the G&F other than eventually supporting a license fee increase (that you claim nobody you represent supports).

Keep kicking that can down the road...nice work.

If you're at all serious about the funding issue, you better start thinking outside the usual box.
 
I struggle to understand how you can claim I am talking in circles.

It is this simple, first you look for ways to cut excessive cost or improve efficiencies. You are right, I doubt we will cut $8-10 million in excess or pick it up with better efficiencies; however, every little bit will help reduce the amount necessary for them to increase fees. Hopefully, concurrently, we can also come up with other ways to increase their income; thereby, further reducing the amount needed to pick up with increased license fees.

On the contrary, WY SFW is addressing the issue rather than simply conceding that the only way to address their problem is increasing license fees.

We have not began looking at long term solutions as we are first trying to address the short term. Unlike many that have already accepted an automatic license fee increase, WY SFW is asking for more cost saving measures and increased efficiency rates.

Unlike you, I attended the G&F Commission meetings on Wednesday & Thursday. Representative Jaggi, a local chairman from Sweetwater County and I met with Deputy Director John Emmerich & Financial chief Richard Renner on Wednesday evening for 3 1/2 hours listening to their explanation of budget cuts (3% of their annual budget) which have been implemented to date. We talked about added areas which can be cut, etc. They informed us that the G&F Department is looking to cut an additional 5% from their 2014 budget as well. They continue to assure us that all cuts have been made but we still see some areas where more cuts can take place.

If you think we are trying to cut the entire $8-10 million they say they need, you are correct. If we can get enough cuts to forgo an increase we will, if as you claim (and which I agreed) we cannot find enough cuts or increased efficiencies then we will look at other short term funding mechanisms which can be implemented without legislative action and implement them.

Hardly kicking the can down the road, but you are welcome to continue with your accusations and inaction's while I work to stop a license fee increase when Wyoming hunters & anglers face one of the most uncertain economic climates we have faced in sometime. You can take the quick, easy road (fix), I would rather take the time to ensure that we are taking the appropriate action(s).

You are the one which appears to be stuck thinking inside the same old usual box.

What are the priorities of the G&F Department/Commission? What do we as hunters/anglers (sportsmen) think those priorities should be? I believe we will see that perhaps our priorities are not the same, but I am willing to wait and see what they state their priorities are before I stop asking questions and accept a license fee increase when most are saying they cannot afford it.

I was shocked to see that only 50% of Wyoming residents hunted deer annually. A license fee increase will only further reduce hunter/angler participation; thus, obligating and establishing the non-traditional funding stream to become essential.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-12 AT 02:14PM (MST)[p]Smokestick,

Excuse me, you're actually talking out of your a$$...not in circles.

You keep saying that you dont want to increase fees, but then agree that cutting expenses/being more efficient funds certainly will not make up the 8-10 million budget shortfall.

When asked to provide ANY kind of ways that you or WYSFW are looking at to increase revenues...other than a fee increase...you provide NOTHING. You then state you and WYSFW dont want outside funding because it gives someone else a "seat at the wildlife table." That leaves but one option...and thats asking hunters/anglers to once again pay the freight. But, according to you, that isnt kicking the can down the road. Sure its not.

All you've done is stated the obvious...that trimming budgets will not make up for a 10 million dollar shortfall and that additional revenues MUST be found.

Really? No chit...who'd a thunk it?

For the 3rd or 4th time...how do you and WYSFW propose to shore up the 10 million dollar shortfall without raising license fees? Who's bringing the money? Santa or the Easter Bunny? Even then, you'd be scared chitless that Santa and/or the Easter bunny would have a seat at the table.

Also, how much did WYSFW donate to AccessYes in 2012?
 
BuzzH,

If you need to call names, that only signifies that you are not winning any points in your argument.

You must be getting frustrated.

The G&F department has cut 3% from their budget. They are now working on cutting another 5% from their 2014 budget.

As I have stated prior; cut first, increase rates of efficiency and then increase license fees to make up any short fall. It really isn't that difficult to understand, is it?

Representative Jaggi (R-Lyman) has asked that either the G&F or their Commission provide the legislators with a list of their priorities. Hopefully, that will enable additional cuts to be made by eliminating lesser prioritized projects/programs, etc.

Criticize WY SFW all you want, at least we are asking the hard questions & seeking solutions without conceding defeat.

You are correct, I would much rather see the G&F Department live within their means than see them create such a crisis as to warrant any deviation from the current user pay model of the North American Model of Wildlife Management. Apparently, you don't have any problem creating additional funding for the G&F regardless of who comes along with that funding. General Funds will enable every wildlife organization a seat at the proverbial table. Many of those groups seek to eliminate hunting/fishing/trapping and are not conservationists but rather preservationists.

If the G&F's funding remains tied to hunting, they will need to address declining mule deer numbers. Should they obtain non-traditional funding dollars, they will have no reason to address declining mule deer populations.

You can call me names and ridicule WY SFW all you want. I believe we are taking the appropriate action. We will continue to fight for preservation of our history and conservation of wildlife, unlike some who are all too willing to support a false crisis to allow for increased bureaucracy, increased costs, and less to say about what the priorities of WY G&F should be.
 
Several recent articles in the local paper are indicating the legislature won't have a choice but to raise license fee's for everyone. I think there was also a legislative committe that voted the other day to recommend rate hikes. On a side note, I emailed my house rep, who is also a friend advising I think the hikes are warranted and told him the SFW does not represent me or any other average Joe hunter in this state. I also reminded him for the umpteenth time the SFW is bought and paid for by the outfitters and other business interests. He replied that he appreciated the input. Sorry Smoke, you have yer interests and us average Joe hunters have ours...
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-21-12 AT 07:42PM (MST)[p]Thanks Triple_BB for speaking for us "average Joe" hunters. Where would we be without your representation? Maybe you should just speak for yourself, because you certainly don't speak for me.

Also, what are these "other business interests" you speak of? Specific examples would be appreciated.

If your house rep is "also a friend", why didn't you just call him?
 
>Also, what are these "other business
>interests" you speak of?
>Specific examples would be appreciated.
>
>
>If your house rep is "also
>a friend", why didn't you
>just call him?


You ever text a friend on yer phone? Why not just call them, you have the phone in yer hand? I like email, maybe the next guy likes to text. What's yer point? As for other business interests, ask Smoke. SFW was about the only supposed sportsman group who opposed the WY Range Legacy Act. The only other business interests to oppose the act was the oil industry...
 
Triple_BB,

Fortunately, the local papers are not our legislators and they can only attempt to influence them.

Notice that I mentioned the name of the legislator I have been working with & I didn't reference him as only a friend. Furthermore, I was at the Joint TRW Committee meeting and while the vote may have came out as 8 in favor & 6 in opposition, I know that doesn't necessarily translate into support for the bill. Many voted in favor of the bill in order to allow more legislators a chance to review this issue.

Contrary to what you have stated, SFW is speaking up for our members, some of which are average Joe's. I have never represented other wise & if your legislative friend really exists he will already know that and you can ask him if that is not true. SFW is paid for by our members and no one else. We have proven this time & time again. WY SFW was the only sportsmen's group with the guts to question the need for license fee increases. All those average Joe's that agree with our position should contact their legislators as Triple_BB has taken it upon himself to represent your interests without consulting you. You might want to let them know your thoughts before someone else does.
 
Smoke, glad you stated for folks that only some of yer members are average Joe's. It tells us the majority of yer members ain't, but then thats not really a surprise. Also, I'd never name my house rep on a forum like this. The last thing I need is to have a bunch of yer wealthy members harassing the guy. Further I don't pretend to represent anyone except to let folks know your group doesn't represent the average Joe as already noted. Having said that, I would question yer definition of an average Joe. Anyone up who supports license set asides for outfitters and chooses to cozy up with the WGOA ain't an average Joe...
 
Triple_BB,

I never said the majority of our members are not average Joe's, I simply stated that I do not speak for every average Joe. Our membership is the same, no matter who you are and every member has the chance to have their voice heard. You can infer that only money talks with WY SFW but that is hardly true. I am far from wealthy as are most of my friends (some of which are members & some are not members). Ironic how you continue to attempt to change the discussion to something else. The bottom line is that WY SFW stood up for all hunters/anglers/trappers and simply asked for more information before we allow increased license fees. The wealthy, which you infer are our members, warned the G&F in 2007 that non-resident fees were getting too high. When Idaho & Montana increased their fees in 2009, few would have predicted the difficulties they are now experiencing in selling non-resident licenses. Our own G&F Department continues to say that doesn't matter and that hunters will pay the higher fees. What they are not saying is how this affects the average Joe's, which you claim to be. Obviously, I do not think of you as an average Joe. In fact, I doubt many on MM are average Joes, most are very dedicated and devout hunters. I do know that some are very average though as I still have friends & family in Utah and know that they frequent this site periodically.
Get you facts straight, WY SFW does see outfitters & guides, as well as members of WYOGA as sportsmen. Some of them are even members of WY SFW; however, we do sometimes disagree. That doesn't make them evil nor does it make us in their camp when we agree on issues.
Don't worry, I don't need to know who is your legislative friend, I will talk with him eventually if he has questions about why we are opposing increased license fees for the G&F.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-05-12 AT 03:04PM (MST)[p]Nice...WYSFW is going to vote against the fee increase...right before they vote for it. Why does that sound so...I dont know...political? Where have I heard that before? Hmmmm?

As usual, WYSFW is again asking hunters to pay all the freight while the wildlife free-loaders pay not a single dime.

Oh, and lets cut some of the current G&F programs, because us hunters/fishermen just flat have too much opportunity now.

Brilliant.

What a joke.
 
Hunters/Anglers/Trappers have always paid "all the freight". Why should we stop doing it now? What are the costs should we allow others to share the cost of that freight?

Ironic that you allege that we have too much opportunity now. Should the G&F secure non-traditional funding from the general fund, what will be their incentive be to address declining mule deer populations? What about recruiting & retaining new hunters/anglers/trappers?

Every sportsman should be concerned that Wyoming's Director & Deputy Director have both openly stated that hunting and fishing license sales can no longer sustain the G&F Department.

WY SFW can see the threat posed by moving away from the user pay model known as the North American Model of Wildlife Management to something where non-traditional dollars can bridge the gap. We would rather see our Department shrink down to where it can be sustained by hunter/angler/trapping licenses sales than run the risk of seeing our voice further reduced. In my opinion, WY SFW would not exist today if our G&F Department had not started walking away from concerns of sportsmen. Had they remained our advocates, we would not need a sportsman's group to fill the advocacy role they vacated.

Can you not see that a license fee increase will ultimately reduce the number of hunters/anglers/trappers buying licenses? Too many people have said they will no longer be able to hunt. These are not the die-hard hunters that frequent MM or similar websites that will be lost; however, we can no longer take actions which further reduce those contributing to wildlife management via the purchase of hunting/fishing/trapping licenses. Currently, only 50% of the hunters are purchasing a deer license every year in Wyoming. Approximately 10% of the hunters purchased one deer license in the last five years. Those are the hunters which will most likely be lost due to an unwarranted license fee increase.

Funny how the G&F Department has been able to find areas to cut their budget even though they first sought a license fee increase. We will be looking at ways to increase efficiencies as well.

This is hardly a joke!

And the only opposition to the license fee increases has been WY SFW, the group routinely accused on this site as only looking out for the rich, elite, landowners and outfitters.

Hmmmmmm.......
 
"And the only opposition to the license fee increases has been WY SFW, the group routinely accused on this site as only looking out for the rich, elite, landowners and outfitters.

Hmmmmmm......."


SMOKESTICK---May I assume you mean that is the only organization in opposition because I know many individual guys like myself that have called or emailed the G&F in opposition, not to a reasonable increase, but to the huge increases they are proposing for the NRs?
I can guarantee and agree with you that they need to become more efficient and offer this as an example. This is what I found in my mailbox when I got back from my 2012 hunting trip for deer and antelope. First, there were hunter survey postcards for both species asking that I submit comments on my hunt ASAP and was given a Password number on each so I could do so online. There were also two envelopes dated with postmarks a couple weeks later with prepaid return envelopes inside saying that if I had not yet responded to the postcards to please do so or fill out the paperwork and send it back in the prepaid envelopes. Those outer envelopes were sent before the October seasons had barely ended. On top of that, another envelope from the G&F was in my mailbox and it was asking that I fill out a multi-page questionaire on how they could improve the G&F Department and it also contained a prepaid return envelope asking that it be returned before the end of October. That is hardly the time to be sending out that type of mailing asking for an immediate return while I'm still out there! That is eight (8) pieces of mail for one person that they paid for, including all the postage, and I'm sure that can be multiplied many times because of the large % of hunters in the state that receive those surveys! No wonder they are out of money with that type of waste!!! Incidentally, this is not the first year this has happened to me and I always make sure to do their surveys on line as soon as I return home from my hunting trips. After doing the online surveys this year, I filled out and sent in the multipage one and politely gave them a piece of my mind as to why they need more money!
 
Exactly... I have seen this too and had the same stuff come at me. One question I have is the game check stations. The times I have went through them there were 10+ employees standing around and at most like one other vehicle???? This was mid week even.

I do not understand why it is so hard tom under stand that we want accountability in the system, we want efficient use of money and once that is occurring if we need more money then settle a long term plan not just a one time raise prices for a couple years then in a couple years raise them again.

As far as using general funds, it is a real bad idea. It simply does not make and sense to do this as it will then create all sorts of openings for the anti hunters in your state. when the programs are funded by sportsmen they are safer. The way I would ever support a general fund based wildlife agency is with a guaranteed budget basis that any year funded has to have the same if not more money allocated as the year before (no cuts or cuts limited to less than 3% and limited to 2 years in a row before they cease or are raised). And a very specific state statute that ensures hunting and trapping activities will be based on good science and management, and that there will be a right to hunt law which will require a majority vote of 65% to 35% in order for any new laws limiting the ability to hunters to hunt.
 
TOPGUN,

Your assumption is correct, WY SFW is the only organization, so far, which is opposing this license fee increase.

I am well aware of the fact that many individuals are also opposed to these proposed license fees. I am glad that you took the time send in your comments. I can and will only represent members of WY SFW; however, it is nice to know that you are willing to engage even if you share the same position as does WY SFW.

I also agree that there are ways to increase efficiencies and thus reduce costs to the G&F Department. While BuzzH and a few others are too willing to accept this license fee increases as though we can do nothing about it. I also know that many are members of of organizations which are willing to accept these proposed license fee increases. I would urge those of you which belong to other organizations to ask them what position they are taking. Perhaps they should be told about your concerns related to these proposed license fee increases and the potential negative impacts to them. After all, we can not have the evil SFW organization standing up for the little guys or average Joes, right?
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-06-12 AT 08:15PM (MST)[p]Smokestick,

Lets look at your post...we'll sort the buckwheat from the bullchit, real fast.

You said, Hunters/Anglers/Trappers have always paid "all the freight". Why should we stop doing it now? What are the costs should we allow others to share the cost of that freight?

Easy, we're facing a 6-10 million dollar per year budget shortfall. I'll remind you that you agreed with the fact we're not going to make up the shortfall through effeciency or cutting G&F programs. Lets also remind everyone that neither YOU nor WYSFW has offered up a single solution to this long-term budget shortfall. Other than being against the license increases now, which you will support later.

Ironic that you allege that we have too much opportunity now.

I see my sarcasm escapes your comprehension. What programs do you and SFW find non-essential currently? I dont find many that can, or should, be cut. How are you going to tell birdhunters that they're not a priority anymore? How are you going to break the news to Wyoming anglers that fish stocking is no longer a priority? Any program you cut is taking away opportunity from sportsmen in Wyoming, and NO I dont believe sportsmen have too much opportunity.

Should the G&F secure non-traditional funding from the general fund, what will be their incentive be to address declining mule deer populations? What about recruiting & retaining new hunters/anglers/trappers?

Their incentive will be to spend non-traditional general fund money on things like non-game species, grizzly bears, etc. That will in turn free up funds from traditional sources (license sales) to address the declining mule deer, etc.

Every sportsman should be concerned that Wyoming's Director & Deputy Director have both openly stated that hunting and fishing license sales can no longer sustain the G&F Department.

Agreed, and they are correct. But, kicking the same can, down the same road, will not solve the problem. As I've already stated, you and your club havent offered any solutions to the funding woes. You just continue to ask the same group to fund it all. You have no other options and have listed no other options.

WY SFW can see the threat posed by moving away from the user pay model known as the North American Model of Wildlife Management to something where non-traditional dollars can bridge the gap.

Really? Can you show me (pun there, also a hint) the threats that hunters are under in at least one state that has obtained funding via a 1/8th of a cent sales tax dedicated to wildlife? Also, since the bill that Larry Hicks introduced, the right to hunt law, what threat is there to hunting in Wyoming if other funding is found?

We would rather see our Department shrink down to where it can be sustained by hunter/angler/trapping licenses sales than run the risk of seeing our voice further reduced.

Great, lets take away opportunity as we clearly have too much of that in Wyoming (sarcasm, so you dont miss it...again).

In my opinion, WY SFW would not exist today if our G&F Department had not started walking away from concerns of sportsmen.

Painting with a broad brush there, dont you think? Lets have some examples...as I'm going to say your full of crap.

Had they remained our advocates, we would not need a sportsman's group to fill the advocacy role they vacated.

Really? So now you claim the G&F does not advocate for Sportsmen? Examples please.

Speaking of advocating for things Bob, I recall WYSFW advocating for outfitters via pushing for outfitter only tags. Dont recall the G&F supporting that.

Can you not see that a license fee increase will ultimately reduce the number of hunters/anglers/trappers buying licenses? Too many people have said they will no longer be able to hunt. These are not the die-hard hunters that frequent MM or similar websites that will be lost; however, we can no longer take actions which further reduce those contributing to wildlife management via the purchase of hunting/fishing/trapping licenses.

I think you need to do some further research. The number one reason, nation wide, for hunters choosing to stay home is a lack of access, not the price of the license.

Currently, only 50% of the hunters are purchasing a deer license every year in Wyoming.

doesnt surprise me, but cleary the license prices arent too high NOW, yet only 50% are buying a deer license. Why is that? See above for the answer...(lack of access).

Apparently YOUR group agrees that a lack of access is a real issue...since you state that on your website. Since you've failed to answer my question at least 3 times now, may as well go for a 4th. HOW MUCH HAS WYSFW DONATED TO ACCESSYES IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS? I mean with access being one of your "concerns"...a great place to spend some money that will increase access is a program like ACCESSYES.

Approximately 10% of the hunters purchased one deer license in the last five years. Those are the hunters which will most likely be lost due to an unwarranted license fee increase.

A bigger concern to me is how we lost the other 90%.

Funny how the G&F Department has been able to find areas to cut their budget even though they first sought a license fee increase.

Why do you find that odd? They've been doing more with less for the last decade, at least. Unless you've been playing ripvanwinkle for the last 10 years, you cant miss that fact.

This is hardly a joke!

You're right, the funding issue isnt, but you and WYSFW's lack of ANY type of solution clearly is.

And the only opposition to the license fee increases has been WY SFW

Do you ever find it odd that on many, many issues you find yourself and your group alone on a majority of said issues? You should think about that.

the group routinely accused on this site as only looking out for the rich, elite, landowners and outfitters.

The truth is not an accusation. You and WYSFW have fully supported the idea of outfitter only licenses, transferable landowner tags, and you personally told me you want to see a ranching for wildlife type program in Wyoming. Funny that you'd support any of those considering your group is a such a great advocate of the average guy.

Hardly a track record of NOT catering to the groups you mention.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-06-12 AT 08:32PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-06-12 AT 08:28?PM (MST)

Smokestick,

You'll be falling in lock-step with BuzzH on the inevitable fact that license fee increases are currently the only choice...you've offered no other funding alternatives.

You're putting on a half-a$$ed show of smoke and mirrors, right before you kick the inevitable can of license increases down the road...again. Your "opposition" to license increases is nothing more than a political stunt.

I'm not cracked up about the fee increases either (in particular on NR's), but there is nobody, in particular nobody from WYSFW, offering up any viable solutions.


Fact.
 
BuzzH,

Perhaps WY SFW has not shared any of our solutions yet as it isn't time nor the place for offering solutions. First things first, cut where appropriate and increase efficiencies where possible.

Solutions will be offered and implemented.

You are wrong as we will find ways to make the necessary cuts and increase efficiency rates.

Furthermore, we will see what the priorities are for the G&F Department.

You are also assuming that it is only our programs which can be cut. Unlike you, I believe we can find programs to cut without cutting hunting/fishing programs. There are plenty of places to cut outside of hunting/fishing programs.

WY SFW will work to ensure that the G&F Department is no longer too large to be unsustainable by hunting/fishing license sales. We will work with our legislators to ensure that our G&F Department is adequately funded and that its priorities are those which the state desires.

This is not a political stunt but a fight to ensure that our heritage continues and that the North American Model of Wildlife Management remains intact and functional.

You can continue to surrender but I am unwilling to quit or stop fighting for our heritage. You can level all the accusations you want to at me, it does not matter as you are wrong about who I am, the goals & objectives of WY SFW and our dedication to protecting our hunting, fishing and trapping heritage. We are clearly fighting this battle not for the rich or the elite but for the average Joes you are willing to throw under the bus. Actions speak louder than blogs like MM.

As I have said numerous times, where has WY SFW done anything which has caused harm to our heritage? You seem to be only able to ask questions and wonder why I do not answer your questions. I see no reason to provide you with answers as nothing I do will ever change you or your opinion of SFW.
 
Keep chirping big-bird.

You're going back to the same well for your water...you have no choice.

If you want to fight for our heritage, find a real solution to fund it.

I'm not throwing anyone under the bus...you are. Your unwillingness to find and support non-traditional funding, combined with your fear of the boogey-man, is leaving no viable solution other than raising license fees.

I disagree that now isnt the time for looking to, and suggesting, long-term solutions. I'd throw in with your opposition to license fee increases if you tell me what your plan for long-term funding woes are. I bet many others would too. But, what I wont do, is sit by and watch you and WYSFW gut sportsmens opportunity, gut the department and staff, and prioritize what programs WYSFW thinks is important. I'll take the license fee increase before I allow that to happen.

Ever heard of being PRO-ACTIVE instead of RE-ACTIVE?

Keep kicking that can down the road Bob, you've a knack for it.
 
I belong to RMEF, Delta Waterfowl, DU & the WY Wildlife Fed. I joined in part because I was able to see where they were spending their money and what they were doing to help wildlife before I joined. Smoke, along those lines I'd also be curious to know how much money yer group has donated to Access Yes. Also, has yer group done anything to purchase easements, access, worked on habitat restoration, etc., anything in Wyoming?

The only thing I've ever heard your group doing was donating hay to the feed grouds in Jackson. And from what I recall, the refuge managers didn't want it.

Question is, are you really a sportsman's group or just a political action group primarily catering to wealthy hunters and the outfitting industry?
 
We are being proactive in opposing the license fee increases, unlike you.

You are the one kicking the can down the road, not me.

WY SFW will find solutions by working with our legislators, the Department & the Commission. Giving in to these proposed license fees does not solve the problem nor will it restore our deer herds.

Just because I have not exposed our solutions doesn't mean we don't have them. They will come forward at the proper time. They will not be left solely to WY SFW; however, we will play a role in restoring priorities for hunters/anglers/trappers without cutting our programs.
 
Triple_BB,

Where are those groups spending their money? Last I saw, most of the money raised by those groups leave the state and are spent elsewhere.

Yes, our group did donate hay to the National Elk Refuge but more importantly, we stopped the former refuge manager from starving the elk he was hired to manage, even though he had an anti-feeding agenda. After the initial "Hay Day", we have donated hay in support of maintaining our elk feed grounds. As is usually the case, there is more to the story than you know or would care to know about. Your hate for everything SFW will not allow you or some on this site to see anything WY SFW has done as being beneficial.

Our priority has not been just to focus on habitat. We have focused our attention and energy on legislative solutions. As you also know, we have spent a lot of our time, energy & resources fighting to ensure that Wyoming was able to manage wolves based on Wyoming's desire to contain wolves in NW Wyoming.

By being engaged in legislative issues, WY SFW has established the Wyoming Wildlife & Natural Resource Trust. This was tried twice before SFW existed in Wyoming. I met with Governor Freudenthal to discuss access issues and he suggested that we focus on the Wildlife Trust. Access remains a huge issue that we will continue addressing.

WY SFW has supported license fee increases in 2007 and suggested that we request general fund dollars to pay for Capitol Construction costs. We also told the G&F that we thought license fees were getting too high in 2007, especially the non-resident fees.

We worked with the Woolgrowers to expand local county predator boards to include sportsmen and established general funding dollars to address predators. This has improved to focus of predator management to benefit wildlife populations not simply address livestock predation.

WY SFW also helped pass the recoupment bill which restores money to the WY G&F where the legislators have passed laws which obligated the G&F to offer reduced price license fees, etc.
This generates about $1 million annually.

Please explain to me how WY SFW is "catering to wealthy hunters and the outfitting industry?" by opposing the proposed license fees? Why would a political organization expend energy fighting this fight when the wealthy hunters and outfitters would absorb this license fee increase with little concern for how it might impact the average Joes, many of which are stating that they will simply no longer hunt/fish?

Some of the SFW chapters have given money to the access yes program. Many of our members contribute individually, as do I. There are many ways to address access and we will look to increase access. How much of a priority is access for the G&F Department and how are they trying to expand access?
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-06-12 AT 11:28PM (MST)[p]WapitiBob,

WY SFW has no desire to implement anything like the EXPO as we do not have enough people in our state to make something like that even work. I would compare that to the idea of a Wyoming Lottery, too few people in the state to make it profitable and no incentive for any other state to welcome us into their existing pool as we do not have enough people to fund it.

Utah has their solutions that have worked for them. Wyoming is different; it has different issues and will require different solutions.

Once we have seen the cuts made, increased efficiencies within the G&F and understand where the priorities are within the Department we will begin to look at budget shortfalls and explore new ways of increasing funding for the Department. That may come via specific non-game funding from the general funds for specific purposes. I doubt WY SFW will ever support a blank check from the states general fund to be used any way possible.

WY SFW will work to ensure that our G&F Department stays viable via established, historical funding mechanisms and find new ways to increase funding without losing our voice in wildlife management.
 
From a NR stand point I do not like the idea of increasing prices. The cost of my DIY out of state hunts has risen greatly over the last few years due to fuel and tag/license fees. But at the same time I understand where Fish & Game would need some more funding. I am not sticking up for them, and I have no idea how efficiently they are ran.

In the last 15 years we have seen more and more winter grounds turned into housing. Our deer and elk herds have CWD and other diseases that require money & man power to research and control. Now there is also the wolf and grizzly bears to deal with. As more and more people can not afford to get tags I feel poaching, which I believe is a hung problem now, will get worse. Which will require more wardens. On top of that mother nature is always there to through a wrench in the plans by creating droughts and harsh winters. Fish & Game also has to deal with the raising fuel, equipment, and benefit costs,

Answers, I have none. I am glad to have hunted Wyoming the last 2 years, and have had great success. I got to see my 12 year old son shot his first antelope doe & buck this year on our archery hunt and I would not have traded that for anything.

What I do know is that a lot of the time a job is not as easy as you thought once you are the one trying to run things.
 
Don't recall the WY Wildlife Fed spending a lot of money out of state unless yer talking about lobbying for the Wyoming Wildlife Range Legacy Act. You know the Act that your organization refused to endorse or support. RMEF has spent quite a bit of money in Wyoming over the years. Not so much by DU and DW. But then elk don't have wings do they. Guess where those big fat red legged mallards came from that I shot last weekend, not from from anywhere around I'm sure. Since you supposedly represent sportsmen of WY, what has yer group done for us waterfowl hunters? Guess were lucky to have groups like DU and DW aren't we...
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-07-12 AT 10:24AM (MST)[p]Smokestick,

you said,

Where are those groups spending their money? Last I saw, most of the money raised by those groups leave the state and are spent elsewhere.

Thats funny...and the height of absolute hypocrisy for you to ask where ANY group spends their money. You've been asked that same question dozens of times and you give vaugue answers, at best.

Yes, our group did donate hay to the National Elk Refuge but more importantly, we stopped the former refuge manager from starving the elk he was hired to manage, even though he had an anti-feeding agenda. After the initial "Hay Day", we have donated hay in support of maintaining our elk feed grounds. As is usually the case, there is more to the story than you know or would care to know about. Your hate for everything SFW will not allow you or some on this site to see anything WY SFW has done as being beneficial.

Seems like theres always, "more to the story" every time SFW is involved with anything. Ever ask yourself why thats routinely the case?

Our priority has not been just to focus on habitat.

I'll give you that point, see, I give credit where due, and where proof exists. WYSFW doesnt even list habitat issues as an objective on your web page. Funny though that you've stated a few times that restoring mule deer is a big concern of yours, but then point out that habitat issues arent a priority.. Not sure how WYSFW is going to restore mule deer when the WYG&F, and biologists all say habitat issues are the biggest concern. But, like I said, I concur that habitat isnt your focus.

We have focused our attention and energy on legislative solutions. As you also know, we have spent a lot of our time, energy & resources fighting to ensure that Wyoming was able to manage wolves based on Wyoming's desire to contain wolves in NW Wyoming.

Great work! Were you planning on taking all the credit for wolves coming off the list or where you going to go ahead and give Salazar, Mead, hunters, fishermen, and several dozen other groups some credit?

In case you missed the news, I wouldnt be celebrating your "victory" just yet. Appears a couple lawsuits are on the horizon questioning Wyomings wolf management plan...or lack-there-of.

By being engaged in legislative issues, WY SFW has established the Wyoming Wildlife & Natural Resource Trust. This was tried twice before SFW existed in Wyoming.

Wow!!! Thats great that your group was solely responsible for the WWNRT (insert sarcasm). Did you inform all the other Wyoming Conservation groups, wildlife groups, citizens, hunters, fishermen. legislature, etc. that worked their butts off that without you, they'd of had no chance?

WOW!...JUST WOW!

I met with Governor Freudenthal to discuss access issues and he suggested that we focus on the Wildlife Trust.

Probably good advice, because everyone knows that without WYSFW leading the charge, the Wildlife Trust wouldnt have had a chance.

Access remains a huge issue that we will continue addressing.

****WARNING****

WYSFW, along with their leadership, want to bring Ranching for Wildlife, CWMU, and similar programs to Wyoming. Their idea of increasing "public access" is to give landowners transferable licenses (the only way RFW or CWMU programs can work) to sell to the highest bidder in exchange for allowing a handful of residents "access" to these ranches. I suggest all Wyoming Sportsmen look into these programs in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. Ask the Residents there how happy they are with the "public access" provided via these programs. You'll quickly find that in all those states, that the average guy has been bent over via these programs. Wont be any different in Wyoming.

WY SFW has supported license fee increases in 2007

Yep, and you'll be supporting them again in 2012.

We worked with the Woolgrowers to expand local county predator boards to include sportsmen and established general funding dollars to address predators. This has improved to focus of predator management to benefit wildlife populations not simply address livestock predation.

I dont buy it. I want some hard data to prove that coyote control has improved big-game herds in Wyoming. Any dumby that would throw money down the drain on predator control doesnt understand a single thing about coyote biology, reproductive rates, etc. As a government hunter friend of mine said, and is still true today..."you shoot one coyote, 10 come to his funeral".

Honestly, you'd be using your money more wisely buying mule deer and antelope fawns pajamas to keep them warm through their first winter of life...and thats a fact.

WY SFW also helped pass the recoupment bill which restores money to the WY G&F where the legislators have passed laws which obligated the G&F to offer reduced price license fees, etc.
This generates about $1 million annually.

Glad to see you arent taking ALL the credit, for once.

Please explain to me how WY SFW is "catering to wealthy hunters and the outfitting industry?"

Its already been stated, numerous times. You and WYSFW have supported outfitter sponsored licenses, transferable landowner tags, and also support RFW, CWMU type programs. Tell me how any of those things dont vastly favor the wealthy hunters, outfitters, and landowners?

Why would a political organization expend energy fighting this fight when the wealthy hunters and outfitters would absorb this license fee increase with little concern for how it might impact the average Joes, many of which are stating that they will simply no longer hunt/fish?

I've wondered how you and WYSFW could ever support programs that clearly favor the outfitters, landowners, and wealthy hunters. In particular when you trumpet on about how you're "just looking out for the average guy"...

Some of the SFW chapters have given money to the access yes program.

According to research I've done, ONE chapter donated an undisclosed amount in 2010.

Many of our members contribute individually, as do I.

Thank you, I wasnt asking about individuals though.

There are many ways to address access and we will look to increase access.

Yeah, I know, you want RFW and CWMU programs that allow a very, very, very small number of resident hunters limited amounts of access to private lands. Its also fair to note that typically, the public hunters have no say in when, or where they hunt. They're told when and where they can hunt, never allowed to scout, etc. Usually, publically drawn tags are not even valid on accessible public lands within a RFW operation (Colorado for instance).

How much of a priority is access for the G&F Department and how are they trying to expand access?

Apparently more of a priority than it is for you and your club. The ACCESSYES program was not initiated by WYSFW, unless you're going to again take credit for something you didnt do. I've been told by numerous ACCESSYES coordinators that they could vastly increase the number of ranches enrolled, but lack funding.

It would seem to me, that any group thats really looking out for the average hunter and access, would be making significant donations to a public access program. In particular when that program is already established and returns 4 acres of access for every $1 invested. But hey, what do us average guys know?
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-07-12 AT 02:18PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-07-12 AT 02:12?PM (MST)


With all the numb skull things going on with wildlife in Utah these days, the CWMU program is the biggest rape of all..and thats saying something.

Sure a few folks will get the opportunity to hunt a ranch (under strict rules that favor the paying hunter) one or maybe 2 times in their life..What was taken? Land owners that used to let you on by simply asking have now leased to outfitters via the CWMU program. The little valley i live in is surrounded on all sides by CWMU's. They arent killing bigger bucks or bulls on those places than we did 15 years ago. so much for increased trophy quality. but hey they got a nice private club now..If you are a NR, you dont even have a chance to draw them. I think the average hunter would be outraged if they actually knew how much PUBLIC LAND is tied up with PRIVATE CWMU's Notice I didnt say within, lots of those public chunks are several sections and are not land locked by private. CWMU's are a joke. Dont drink the Koolaid.

In comparison Wyoming's access yes program is far superior, not even a contest..That program has gained some steam here in UT, but its a little too late.

As for the big increase in Wyoming I have given my thoughts to the F&G. I used to welcome increases out of my own greed, figuring it would help the draw odds..it hasent (in wyoming anyway). When the draws open up in the spring its to the point of getting rediculous the amount of money I send out to get my apps in throughout the west.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-08-12 AT 09:35PM (MST)[p]BuzzH,

You initially posted my comments in bold type, followed by your comments in regular text.

Here are my responses to your comments:

Where are those groups spending their money? Last I saw, most of the money raised by those groups leave the state and are spent elsewhere.

Thats funny...and the height of absolute hypocrisy for you to ask where ANY group spends their money. You've been asked that same question dozens of times and you give vaugue answers, at best.

Really? WY SFW has spent all of its money addressing Wyoming issues. Almost every other National organization is mining Wyoming?s natural resources and taking 70-80% of the money raised here and allocating it somewhere else.

Yes, our group did donate hay to the National Elk Refuge but more importantly, we stopped the former refuge manager from starving the elk he was hired to manage, even though he had an anti-feeding agenda. After the initial "Hay Day", we have donated hay in support of maintaining our elk feed grounds. As is usually the case, there is more to the story than you know or would care to know about. Your hate for everything SFW will not allow you or some on this site to see anything WY SFW has done as being beneficial.

Seems like theres always, "more to the story" every time SFW is involved with anything. Ever ask yourself why thats routinely the case?

Yes, there usually is more to the story than you care to learn about. I guess you did not care about the actions of the past NER Manager as you would have allowed him to continue starving elk and undermining the express purpose of the NER. Somehow things like this are just lost or glossed over by guys like BuzzH. Your hatred for all things SFW has blinded you and it is impossible for you to see anything we do as beneficial.

Our priority has not been just to focus on habitat.

I'll give you that point, see, I give credit where due, and where proof exists. WYSFW doesnt even list habitat issues as an objective on your web page. Funny though that you've stated a few times that restoring mule deer is a big concern of yours, but then point out that habitat issues arent a priority.. Not sure how WYSFW is going to restore mule deer when the WYG&F, and biologists all say habitat issues are the biggest concern. But, like I said, I concur that habitat isnt your focus.

Yes, that is all the G&F biologists want to look at is habitat. How has that helped mule deer? Golly, it seems as though we have been getting the same stories for at least a decade and how have mule deer numbers fared? I guess you are content to just keep doing the same things and hoping that miraculously things turn around for mule deer and their habitat. WY SFW is going to push for another direction as we are tired of seeing nothing change. Yes, we are finally getting the G&F to look at other things to try while we wait for habitat conditions to change.

We have focused our attention and energy on legislative solutions. As you also know, we have spent a lot of our time, energy & resources fighting to ensure that Wyoming was able to manage wolves based on Wyoming's desire to contain wolves in NW Wyoming.

Great work! Were you planning on taking all the credit for wolves coming off the list or where you going to go ahead and give Salazar, Mead, hunters, fishermen, and several dozen other groups some credit?

In case you missed the news, I wouldnt be celebrating your "victory" just yet. Appears a couple lawsuits are on the horizon questioning Wyomings wolf management plan...or lack-there-of.

WY SFW has never taken sole credit for obtaining wolf delisting under Wyoming?s plan. We have always said that it was a combined effort of the Wolf Coalition, Senator Kit Jennings and former USFWS Regional Director Mitch King. Governor Freudenthal & Mead have also played a significant role in Wyoming being where we are today. Once again, where were you, BuzzH? You were cheering for and continue to cheer for the opposition. Is it any wonder that you and I might disagree on this topic? Furthermore, you keep stating that all of this would have not been necessary had Wyoming went with trophy status statewide. I guess you cannot see how that has played out for other states which implemented trophy management statewide? Let me explain it to you; they also face litigation. Oh yeh, except for Idaho & Montana, which threw Wyoming and every other state under the bus and settled for a two state delisting. Brilliant!

]b]By being engaged in legislative issues, WY SFW has established the Wyoming Wildlife & Natural Resource Trust. This was tried twice before SFW existed in Wyoming.[/b]

Wow!!! Thats great that your group was solely responsible for the WWNRT (insert sarcasm). Did you inform all the other Wyoming Conservation groups, wildlife groups, citizens, hunters, fishermen. legislature, etc. that worked their butts off that without you, they'd of had no chance?

WOW!...JUST WOW!

Once again, it was a team effort; however, it was solely left to WY SFW to defeat every attempt to insert fee title acquisition into the bill. For those that don't know, that was why past efforts failed. Do your own research and fact check as I was there BuzzH and you were not! Once again?..

I met with Governor Freudenthal to discuss access issues and he suggested that we focus on the Wildlife Trust.

Probably good advice, because everyone knows that without WYSFW leading the charge, the Wildlife Trust wouldnt have had a chance.

Don?t trust me on this one, do your own fact checking. Call Governor Freudenthal and ask him. Ask former Speaker of the House Randall Luthi. As I said, it was a team effort, but it was left to WY SFW to defeat all amendments which attempt to insert fee title acquisition. Had one of those amendments passed, the AG community as well as the oil & gas would have killed the bill.

Access remains a huge issue that we will continue addressing.

****WARNING****

WYSFW, along with their leadership, want to bring Ranching for Wildlife, CWMU, and similar programs to Wyoming. Their idea of increasing "public access" is to give landowners transferable licenses (the only way RFW or CWMU programs can work) to sell to the highest bidder in exchange for allowing a handful of residents "access" to these ranches. I suggest all Wyoming Sportsmen look into these programs in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. Ask the Residents there how happy they are with the "public access" provided via these programs. You'll quickly find that in all those states, that the average guy has been bent over via these programs. Wont be any different in Wyoming.

I thought you claimed WY SFW had no plans? I would also ask sportsmen to look into these programs. Wyoming doesn't need to adopt any plan from other states but there is nothing that suggests we cannot look to other states and modify their programs to meet Wyoming?s challenges. As always, the devil is in the details.

WY SFW has supported license fee increases in 2007

Yep, and you'll be supporting them again in 2012.

Nope. WY SFW will not be supporting license fees in 2012. Furthermore, I doubt we will be supporting license fee increases in 2013 either.

We worked with the Woolgrowers to expand local county predator boards to include sportsmen and established general funding dollars to address predators. This has improved to focus of predator management to benefit wildlife populations not simply address livestock predation.

I dont buy it. I want some hard data to prove that coyote control has improved big-game herds in Wyoming. Any dumby that would throw money down the drain on predator control doesnt understand a single thing about coyote biology, reproductive rates, etc. As a government hunter friend of mine said, and is still true today..."you shoot one coyote, 10 come to his funeral".

Honestly, you'd be using your money more wisely buying mule deer and antelope fawns pajamas to keep them warm through their first winter of life...and thats a fact.

BuzzH, you should do some research as you will find numerous accounts of benefits derived via predator management. You probably do not believe in providing deer with a supplemental feed during harsh winters either. While you are doing your predator research, maybe you should also look at supplemental winter feeding as well. It is amazing what you can learn when you actually look for information.

WY SFW also helped pass the recoupment bill which restores money to the WY G&F where the legislators have passed laws which obligated the G&F to offer reduced price license fees, etc.
This generates about $1 million annually.

Glad to see you arent taking ALL the credit, for once.

Nothing happens because of a sole organization or individual but it takes someone showing up and exhibiting leadership. Setting by idle, wishing that license fees weren't climbing so high and accepting the increase as inevitable is another good example of leadership. Hmmmm??..

Please explain to me how WY SFW is "catering to wealthy hunters and the outfitting industry?"

Its already been stated, numerous times. You and WYSFW have supported outfitter sponsored licenses, transferable landowner tags, and also support RFW, CWMU type programs. Tell me how any of those things dont vastly favor the wealthy hunters, outfitters, and landowners?

It has already been stated on here that most of the private lands that allow hunting are either leased or only family members & friends are allowed to hunt. It has also been explained several times that WY SFW endorsed stabilizing the Outfitting Industry. You and several others have inferred that translated to set aside licenses for Outfitters. Once again, your interpretation is wrong. As stated above, the devils are in the details. Just case one states program does it one way, doesn't mean all others must follow suit. One could equally suggest that willingly accepting license fee increases favor the wealthy hunters, outfitters and landowners as they will soon be the only people able to purchase licenses. You are brilliant BuzzH!

Why would a political organization expend energy fighting this fight when the wealthy hunters and outfitters would absorb this license fee increase with little concern for how it might impact the average Joes, many of which are stating that they will simply no longer hunt/fish?

I've wondered how you and WYSFW could ever support programs that clearly favor the outfitters, landowners, and wealthy hunters. In particular when you trumpet on about how you're "just looking out for the average guy"...

Once again BuzzH, you have nothing to provide except smartallect responses. Once again, just for your benefit, I have never claimed to represent anyone other than members of WY SFW. However, I will say, it is our members that have expressed concern over the G&F proposal to increase license fees during one of the highest times of economic uncertainty. Furthermore, WY SFW and its members have pointed out the difficulty other states are now experiencing following their 2009 license fee increases. They say; ?Don?t worry; there are more hunters than we can supply licenses for.? Meanwhile, they deny that it will ultimately reduce the number of hunters/anglers/trappers. The truth is they don't care as they want non-traditional funding sources to replace sportsmen as they are no longer our advocates.

Some of the SFW chapters have given money to the access yes program.

According to research I've done, ONE chapter donated an undisclosed amount in 2010.

I also know that the G&F conveniently failed to recognize the same chapters donation before. Any wonder why they might not have been as inclined to donate more this go around.

Many of our members contribute individually, as do I.

Thank you, I wasnt asking about individuals though.

If more individuals would contribute to the access yes program there would not be a need for other organizations to make contributions.

There are many ways to address access and we will look to increase access.

Yeah, I know, you want RFW and CWMU programs that allow a very, very, very small number of resident hunters limited amounts of access to private lands. Its also fair to note that typically, the public hunters have no say in when, or where they hunt. They're told when and where they can hunt, never allowed to scout, etc. Usually, publically drawn tags are not even valid on accessible public lands within a RFW operation (Colorado for instance).

Just because other states have made the number very, very, very small doesn't mean that Wyoming would need to follow suit. Again, the devil is in the details and you have seen nothing as nothing has been put out there for you to attack.

How much of a priority is access for the G&F Department and how are they trying to expand access?

Apparently more of a priority than it is for you and your club. The ACCESSYES program was not initiated by WYSFW, unless you're going to again take credit for something you didnt do. I've been told by numerous ACCESSYES coordinators that they could vastly increase the number of ranches enrolled, but lack funding.
It would seem to me, that any group thats really looking out for the average hunter and access, would be making significant donations to a public access program. In particular when that program is already established and returns 4 acres of access for every $1 invested. But hey, what do us average guys know?

The truth is the current program cannot get any larger due to the cost associated with its implementation. How many ranches have left the program because an outfitter has come to the landowner(s) and offered more money for the hunting? The smaller landowners or those with parcels interspersed with state lands are enrolling. None of the larger landowners are even considering enrolling in the program because they cannot compete with an open market. The programs you mentioned from other states cost how much for the states to implement? How much more hunting is provided on private lands under their programs than those same private lands provided prior to the implementation of those programs? I have said it before, as a past biologist for Deseret Land and Livestock I know what happened when they enrolled into the CWMU program; 27% of the hunters paid to hunt so that 73% could hunt for the cost of their license. Furthermore, while at Deseret, all of the elk hunters were guided including the hunters which drew the public licenses. They hunted alongside the pay hunters. Deer hunters hunted during the entire 10 day season that paid hunters had. Everyone played by the same rules. No one was allowed scouting but what else would you expect from a working ranch. It is private property and has other priorities besides hunting.

But hey, what do us average guys know?

Are you saying that you are an average guy or are you trying to imply that you are speaking for the average guy?

How's that TOPGUN?
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-08-12 AT 11:26PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-08-12 AT 11:23?PM (MST)

Bob,

I sure hope that the average DIY Wyoming resident and Non-residents hunters of Wyoming are reading this thread.

To say you've been played like a fiddle is an understatement.

I've undoubtedly cleared up a good number of issues and concerns that myself and others may have always had about WYSFW...and SFW in general. I gave WYSFW the benefit of the doubt at first, but its more than clear now that you are the enemy of Wyoming Sportsmen and the Wildlife found here. Not to mention the States of Idaho and Montana.

I'll list your "agenda" and "points" that no doubt prove WYSFW is nothing more than a joke and doesnt care about the average DIY sportsmen at all.

1. Supplemental feeding. Are you fuggin' serious? With the WYG&F facing a budget shortfall of 6-10 million you're actually entertaining the idea of supplemental feeding? The cost is one thing, the toll taken on the range, disease issues, concentrating deer, KILLING DEER, etc. etc. is an even bigger reason to NOT supplement deer herds. Its alsa a FACT that if you're having to feed big-game, your herds have exceeded their habitat.

Read this and tell me how good of idea supplemental feeding is Bob...go ahead. I've a whole bunch more where that came from.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/deer-winter-feeding.html

2. Coyote control is your answer to mule deer woes? Laffin'...Apparently you need to catch up on some of the studies being done. Sorry Bob, but I'm not going to trust you and WYSFW over professionals paid to actually conduct research while you're busy having lunch with the legislature.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61459394/Idaho-Mule-Deer-Study

Pay attention to the parts regarding how well coyote control has worked (coyote control is something your club has spent a ton of money on). Like I said, you'd be better off sizing mule deer fawns for pajamas and yourself for an XXL asshat. As an aside, I hope you dont have a degree in Wildlife management, as I'd demand a total refund if you do.

3. We've now proven that you and WYSFW are fully in support of "stabilizing the outfitting industry" via transferable landowner tags, outfitter sponsored licenses, as well as a Ranching For Wildlife/CWMU program all of which favor the well-heeled, defy the North American Model (that you PRETEND to endorse), and sticks it to the average guy.

4. You dont want a fee increase, but you dont have any ideas on how to secure additional funds that you agree are going to be needed. In other words, your club is worthless and doing nothing but political gerry-mandering to discredit the WYG&F. News flash...the fee increases are going to happen. You'll lose...again. The reason is because you cant come up with a viable solution. Oh, thats right, you're waiting until "the appropriate time" to introduce your imaginary "plans" somewhere in fantasyland. Of course, with a 6-10 million dollar shortfall looming, clearly NOW isnt the appropriate time to start working on funding solutions (heavy sarcasm here, so you dont miss it...again.)

5. You and WYSFW dont like the ACCESSYES program because one of your chapters was not recognized by the WYG&F (according to you) for their donations to the program. Funny thing though, between my wife and I, we've donated over 1K to ACCESSYES the 12 years we've lived here. Unlike WYSFW, I dont think I'll throw my sucker in the dirt, stomp my feet, and hold my breath over it though.

Your other "facts" about large landowners not enrolling is pure bullchit. As an example, take a look at the HMA's in antelope unit 43 and tell me that large landowners arent enrolling Bob. I didnt "cherry pick" either, used the closest HMA's to my house. Take a look at the HMA/Walkin map and tell me it just "smaller landowners" enrolling. What a joke, but the typical type of lie thats made you famous.

The ACCESSYES program is a great program, and all it needs is more funding to enroll even more landowners. I'd post pictures of the animals that myself and friends have taken on HMA's and Walk-in areas...but I dont want to hog the bandwidth it would require.

6. You and WYSFW are in favor of Ranching For Wildlife programs. I've never heard many hunters on any hunting board say how much they like Ranching for Wildlife, CWMU's type programs. I can assure you, you'll get your a$$ handed to you if you try implementing them in Wyoming. They'd be no different than any of the other programs in other states. They have to be set up to favor the landowners/outfitters. To work they must be guaranteed transferable landowner and/or outfitter sponsored tags (which you are in favor of) as well as make even accessible public lands off limits to holders of general and/or public draw tags. To expect it to be different in Wyoming is a joke...and an outright lie.

This thread has been great...always good to expose the truth and the intentions of a group that is in favor of privatizing, commercializing Wyoming wildlife. Also nice to know that you and your club hate the ACCESSYES program. Its also nice to see your "hatred" of the WYG&F department.

Congratulations?
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-08-12 AT 11:33PM (MST)[p]Bob, one last thing I forgot.

Yes, I am an average DIY public land hunter.

No, I dont speak for all average DIY hunters, but I'm a lot more in touch with them than you and WYSFW will ever be...and thats a fact.

If you want proof of that fact, just try getting a RFW/CWMU program going in Wyoming.

We'll see who has the pulse of the average DIY R and NR hunters of Wyoming.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-09-12 AT 12:00PM (MST)[p]Just a few thoughts/comments on the last few posts:

1---Supplemantal feeding of any wildlife, other than in an extreme emergency in a localized area, is not beneficial and can cause many more problems than it is meant to solve. IMHO supplemental feeding of elk in all those various spots that the G&F does is ridiculous and shows the habitat can't support that many animals in those areas.

2---RWF and CWMU programs need to stay right where they are and out of Wyoming. Colorado allowed NRs to apply in the RFW public draws at one time and then without warning restricted it only to residents. I had 4 PPs for both deer and elk with full intentions of using them on a specific RFW ranch. Due to the immediate elimination of the program for NRs, I let my PPs lapse and have no intention of ever spending a dime in Colorado because of that decision.

3---I disagree with those that feel the G&F should not receive more money from the General Fund. Presently the amount is minimal and IMO should be increased so at least various capital expenditures are funded when needed, such as for building new or remodeling older buildings, hatcheries, etc. Many states partially fund their G&F Departments with General Fund money to a greater extent and IMHO Wyoming should do the same. I see no increase in the G&F being "beholding" to certain interests like some say will happen and don't see it happening in other states that partially fund their G&Fs that way. I think a possible increase in the GF money, along with a small tax on motels, energy, a small amount on vehilce registrations or license plates or something similar needs to happen so not only hunters and anglers are paying the bill for all the nongame things the G&F is mandated to do.

4---The wilderness prohibition for NR hunters should be abolished as it is strictly designed to help outfitters and if they can't make it withour subsidies, which it basically is, they should go the way of the free market and if they can't make it on their own, too bad. Any type of outfitter subsidy (tags, etc.)should not be attempted.

5---Maintaining/bettering the habitat where it needs changing is a key element to restoring and/or just maintaining the animals that are out there along with some, but not overly intensive predator control that is too costly and is only a small part of the problem.
 
I have been reading the back and forth between everyone in this post. Here is my two cents worth as a DIY hunter on public land.

1) A substantial increase in resident and non-resident tag fees usually results in less revenue. I watched this happen in Idaho and it is happening in Montana. You substantially raise fees and you will have fewer folks buying tags. That will be good news for those that can afford it and bad news for those that can't. I have a lifetime hunting license in Idaho. I have purchased one tag in Idaho in 12 years. They cost too much. In addition, the hunting now sucks in the areas I am most familiar with.

2) The feedgrounds for elk, deer and moose are not a great idea. Neither was it a good idea for the powers that be to allow uncontrolled growth (human habitation and energy development) in the areas around Jackson, Pinedale and Star Valley that have encroached on the ground that these animals need to survive. Bad ideas seem to be the order of the day when government is involved.

3) Buzz H is a smart aleck. He also looks a little bald and perhaps a little chubby. He is a know it all and has little respect for others or their opinions. His delivery usually destroys his message. He will never be a concensus builder builder and will usually be perceived as a gadfly. He is only interested in being right. By the way, I am old, a little chubby, unshaven but still have my hair. However, I do appreciate the opinions of others in arriving at my conclusions.

4) Smokestick (Bob) is a nice guy. I have spoke to him on the phone. Unfortunately, he is fighting a losing battle on these boards. SFW and its many arms have a huge PR problem that they have brought on themselves and will never overcome. They could try full disclosure of their activities, agenda and finances, but I am sure that wouldn't be enough. Their ship has sailed and may have sunk. Currently, I don't belong to any sportsmen groups because I don't trust any of them. I feel the same way about politicians.

5) Topgun is Topgun. Some of his ideas are great and others are not. I dislike his idea about opening the wilderness to NR hunters. That is because I am selfish and prefer a little solitude when I hunt.

6) Just like Buzz H has contempt for stock growers, cattlemen, Republicans etc. I have the same contempt for the USFS and also for outfitters. The USFS collects special use fees for outfitters and does nothing to control their activities in MY AREA. They allow the uncontrolled harvest of game on National Forest and do little to monitor outfitter activities or reduce their numbers. I hunt wilderness areas on foot. I am often nearly trampled daily by guides and their dude hunters on horseback during elk and deer season. If a tree falls across a trail, these guides and outfitters just make a new trail. I know of one outfitter who parks his dudes on the same ridge every day for almost a month. He passes me in the dark while I am hiking in. He chews your ass out if you go to "HIS SPOT" or try to go past "HIS SPOT". This same idiot has trail cameras in the wilderness to monitor migration. The USFS knows all this and does nothing to stop it. Collect fees and do nothing is the motto of today's USFS.

I am thinking that for guided hunts, the Wyoming Game and Fish should place a $ 1,000 surcharge on every guided hunt. I don't know how much this would raise, but I would prefer this to increased tag prices. What is another $ 1,000.00 when you are paying $ 9,000.00 for a sheep hunt or $ 5,500.00 for an elk hunt.

7) Most of the employees who work for the Wyoming Game and Fish in MY AREA are all right. However, I don't think they are overworked. There is one new redshirt in Cody that runs around in shorts and birkenstocks. Maybe if we paid him more, he could afford boots and pants. I seldom see redshirts in the backcountry (only once in 12 years)or even off the road. Because many of the units in my home area have recently gone limited quota (deer and elk) with restrictive seasons and few general seasons, their work load has declined substantially but their positions have not been eliminated. The redshirts gather info at the game check stations. I took a buck mule deer this year and they got my tag number, name, the age of the deer and the unit it was harvested in. Yet, I have gotten 3 or 4 survey request cards since that time. How about you input the info on the computer and don't waste time and money with surveys for information you already possess.

I am sure that a solution will be found that represents something that appears to be in the middle. My guess is the decisions have already been made and input from me,Smokestick, Topgun and Buzz H has already been filed in the circular file. That would be the circular file next to the circular file where Wyoming Game and Fish deposits your input on season dates, limited versus general areas, etc.

just sayin...
mh
 
mightyhunter,

For the most part, I actually agree with your last post.

A few things to keep in mind, there is more to it than price for the reasons Montana isnt selling all their tags. I dont have the data, but would like to see how many of the Native Montana NR tags were sold this year. It seems that a Montana Legislator, in his infinite wisdom, passed a law that gives former Native Montana Residents deer, elk, bird, and fishing licenses for 4x the resident fees.

For the previous 11 years, I've paid full boat for the MT NR deer/elk combo. For the record, I voiced my displeasure to the Montana Legislature over the Native Montana license. Had a "spirited" phone call with the brain trust that introduced it. The brainiac couldnt understand how a recipient of the deal of the century (me) would be against it? I guess it was too hard to believe that there are people in the world that just arent looking out for themselves...sign of the times I suppose.

I'd bet with the absence of the new Native Montana tags (that are unlimited in number), the number of MT NR licenses sold would have been much different.

On your point 6, it is NOT the USFS that allows unlimited harvest of game on National Forests. Game management and harvest is controlled 100% by the WYG&F. I do happen to agree that guides/outfitters should be monitored heavily by both the USFS and also the WYG&F when/where appropriate. I also agree that there are too many and that many should have their licenses revoked. I believe your story 100% regarding the outfitter that is giving you grief. I also know that many are not like that. Been around and seen both.

Your point 7, while well intentioned, is fully off the mark. There are 50 total wardens in the State of Wyoming. Considering the area that needs to be covered, with various hunting seasons for elk, deer, antelope, birds, going on all at the same time (not to mention fishing, dealing with problem animals, poaching, etc.)...I'd reckon your odds of seeing one of the 50 redshirts trying to cover 97,814 square miles is pretty small. If you want to see them more, you need to hire more. We know that WYSFW is currently trying to gut the WYG&F for "efficiency" and "cost savings". Not sure how you hire more with less...havent figured that out. Clearly WYSFW hasnt either.

Finally, you're wrong about me looking a little bald...I'm a lot bald. Doesnt bother me any. The fact that my knees, back, hips, eyes, etc. have never given me any grief, I'll settle for my hairline going the way of WYSFW...and greedily.

I also wont argue my need to shed lard from my a$$ either.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-10-12 AT 11:43AM (MST)[p]Just for the record, here are the Goals & Objectives set in 2010 by WY SFW. BuzzH you really need to quit attempting to tell everyone what our goals & objectives are as we already have stated them.

? Grizzly Bear
a)Seek and obtain funding/partners for a grizzly bear DNA study to prove that the current methodology used to determine the number of grizzly bears in the GYE is too conservative.
b)Restore grizzly bears as a recovered species.
c)Either obtain hunting for grizzly bears in Wyoming or obtain increased protections for Wyoming Citizens forced to kill in self-defense.
d)Work with Industry Producers to develop a new manner to deliver bear spray that works for hunters.
e)Push back against those that imply the application of lethal force against bear attacks are inappropriate and dispel the myth that bear spray in its current form is a viable or realistic option for hunters.
f)Balance current grizzly bear mortality reporting methods by removing biased assumptions which arbitrarily and capriciously increase grizzly bear mortality rates and threaten the relisting of a recovered population.

? Wind Energy
a)Ensure that areas outside the core sage grouse zone do not become sacrificial zones to wind energy development.
b)Ensure that wind energy doesn't further restrict or diminish access for hunting.
c)Ensure that mitigation exists for impacts affecting recreational opportunities.
d)Ensure that exit strategies are in place in the event that wind energy fails to either materialize or be sustainable.
e)Ensure that best available science is used when determining where transmissions lines are to be placed and/or wind farms created.

? Access
a)Explore and develop programs to address large blocks of private property where no hunting is allowed.
b)Explore ways to increase access for resident hunters.
c)Evaluate other state programs and their effectiveness at increasing access for resident hunters.
d)Explore opportunities to simultaneously increase access and youth hunter participation/retention.
e)Recognize and increase awareness of the threat vast acreages of beetle killed trees pose to public land access and recreational opportunities.
f)Explore opportunities to address removal of beetle killed trees.

? Predation
a)Ensure that whenever hunting opportunities are reduced due to excessive predation that predation issues are also addressed.
b)Ensure that when necessary quota restrictions are lifted in areas where predation factors are responsible for reductions in hunter opportunity.
c)Increase opportunity for harvest of Trophy Game animals by creating a reduced price license fee for areas where predation is reducing hunter opportunity.
d)Increase the number of Trophy Game animals an individual may take annually in areas where predation is reducing hunter opportunity.
e)Address impacts caused by winter ranges closures and the safe haven it creates for lions.
f)Encourage the Department to extend hunting seasons when quotas are met earlier than predicted or expected.
g)Ensure that the Department is assisting local predator management boards with identification of areas where predation factors are suppressing hunter opportunity and that appropriate actions are taken to restore lost hunter opportunity.

? Public Involvement Process for Wildlife Management
a)Address the public?s perception that season setting meetings are a waste of time, energy, money, and valuable state resources.
b)Explore and establish a better process where hunters can address management practices besides length of season and the number of permits being issued.
c)Educate sportsmen and sportswomen as to how the current process works and how they can use it to address their concerns and issues.
d)Increase public participation and involvement.
e)Encourage the G&F Department to think more outside the box rather than continuing to do the same thing while expecting a different outcome.

? Recover Mule Deer Population
a)Re-evaluate license allocation and percentage split between resident and non-resident hunters.
b)Identify obstacles preventing large scale habitat projects from being implemented.
c)Elevate priority of mule deer recovery with Federal Agencies; primarily BLM.
d)Explore ways to increase partnerships to improve mule deer habitat.
e)Explore opportunities to simultaneously increase access (opportunity) and youth hunter participation/retention.

? Youth Mentoring Program
a)Increase resident youth hunter opportunity, participation and retention.
b)Lift quota for resident youth antelope hunters.
c)Work with WY G&F Department and other interested hunting partnerships to establish a mentoring program with its primary purpose being that of increasing youth hunter opportunity, participation and retention.
d)Identify landowner?s desirous of participating and expanding the Youth Mentoring Program.

? Continue Monitoring Past Objectives
a)Continue working with WY G&F Department to ensure that wolves are once again delisted and managed according the desires of Wyoming?s Citizens.
b)Continue demonstrating support for continued supplemental feeding of elk where warranted through WY SFW?s Annual Hay Day event in Jackson.
c)Continue supporting one of Wyoming?s Crown Jewels; the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust.
 
Bob: After briefly going over the list you just posted, I have several questions. Under the access section, why do you only mention increasing access to resident hunters when NR DIYers provide the bulk of the monies being collected by the G&F? Also, what are the WYSFW thoughts, if any, regarding restricting NRs from hunting in the wilderness areas without a guide or a properly licensed resident? You have mentioned the WYSFW trying to help the outfitter industry in the past, but being unfamiliar with that, other than reading negative comments by some on website Forums, could you please elaborate a little bit on what exactly some of the ways to help them were? Also, with the huge number of outfitters in existence, why would the WYSFW think that outfitters need help in the first place? Thanks for any comments that you might care to make!
 
Mightyhunter,

Your first point is the same point WY SFW has been making since the G&F released their proposed license fee increase. Idaho & Montana have both had difficulty in selling their non-resident licenses following their 2009 license fee increase. Had the economic future looked better, perhaps it would not make a difference; however, coupled with the economic uncertainty Wyoming now faces, WY SFW continues to believe something else needs to be done before license fees are increased.

Point number two is also accurate. While WY SFW has supported G&F elk feeding programs as warranted; that is not even remotely what I envision with mule deer supplemental feeding. We have all been around long enough to realize that occasionally, Wyoming has some extreme weather events that slam our mule deer herds. The G&F has said they would implement an emergency feeding program for mule deer during these extreme winter events; yet, to date, they have not even developed a plan on how they might attempt to implement it. I have fed deer during extreme events. It will not save all the deer but it will save most of the adults and some of the fawns from dieing. Colorado has been also using feed to pull deer away from roads to avoid vehicles. I am tired of hearing that nothing can be done for mule deer and that it is all about their habitat.

Point three appears to be accurate, with the exception that BuzzH is not bald.

Point four is also accurate, with the exception of me being a nice guy. I fully understand the feelings of many on MM when it comes to SFW in general and the erroneous claims made against WY SFW specifically. Fortunately for WY SFW, our creditability is not defined by MM or those which frequent this site. WY SFW has always tried to do the best we can for our members and we will continue to operate under that model.

Point five is also pretty accurate. In fact, the truth is, I think it would be great to get TOPGUN, BuzzH, SMOKESTICK & Mightyhunter all in one camp for a hunt. I believe we are all very passionate about hunting even though we have differences.

Point six is also pretty accurate but as BuzzH points out, it is the G&F which manages the wildlife and subsequent take not the US Forest Service. That being said, I believe it was a mistake to remove the G&F from the Outfitting & Guiding licensing and regulating as they need to be more involved with that process. I am also aware of many problems in your area. In fact, if I had my way, we would dissolve the Outfitter & Guide licensing process and start all over. Unfortunately, as I have stated here numerous times, Wyoming has spent too much time & money protecting their wilderness bill to just ask them to throw it away now. That doesn't mean that it cannot be tweaked though.

Point seven is also to the point. While many of the G&F employees are great there are a few positions which I would cut. I agree that we are spending a lot of time asking for information and that has also been pointed out. As a wildlife biologist, I do know the importance of having data. I would like to see more emphasis on collecting the right information and streamlining that process would increase efficiency and reduce costs. Something I would think even BuzzH would think was worthwhile. I suppose he has not seen or experienced first hand the wastefulness of Government but I saw it when I worked for the USFS.
 
TOPGUN,

Your questions:
Under the access section, why do you only mention increasing access to resident hunters when NR DIYers provide the bulk of the monies being collected by the G&F?

I have stated before that WY SFW represents it members, most of which are resident hunters. That is why I expressly mentioned resident hunters. It appears to me that most non-resident hunters are able to find enough places to hunt and are already hunting a lot on private lands. By allowing resident hunters better access to private property it will also reduce the amount of pressure on our public lands. Those DIY non-resident hunters would also benefit from resident hunters no longer competing for those same limited public lands.

Also, what are the WYSFW thoughts, if any, regarding restricting NRs from hunting in the wilderness areas without a guide or a properly licensed resident?

See my comments made to Mightyhunter.

You have mentioned the WYSFW trying to help the outfitter industry in the past, but being unfamiliar with that, other than reading negative comments by some on website Forums, could you please elaborate a little bit on what exactly some of the ways to help them were? Also, with the huge number of outfitters in existence, why would the WYSFW think that outfitters need help in the first place?

They specifically asked WY SFW to help them stabilize their industry. Most have chosen to interpret our letter stating that support as something else, more direct, that we supported set aside licenses for outfitters. That was not the case, we supported stabilizing their industry. Like many have said on this site, there are areas where too many outfitter are operating. Many camps have been purchased by new outfitters and are sunning way more hunters than historically were ran out of those camps. Also a major problem occurred when they allowed outfitters to separate their day use permits from their actual camps. Furthermore, the BLM will basically issue just about anyone an outfitters license regardless of how many exist for that area. All of this has led to several areas having too many outfitters; coupling that with no interaction between the G&F and you can see how easily their industry could get into trouble. Also look at my comments to mightyhunter.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-10-12 AT 01:25PM (MST)[p]Thanks for the quick response Bob and I definitely agree with your response on #5. A camp with all of us together would be a great time since we are all so passionate about our way of life, regardless of some differences we have in making it even better!
 
Smokestick, I can see you supporting your constituents, However I would not support any agreement that would open up lands to residents and deny access to DIY Non residents. The net result is the DIY non resident hunter either gets screwed by the state in a rate increase, or gets hosed by being coerced into signing on with an outfitter, because there is no place to hunt. I would have to see equal treatment for NR DIY hunters in order to support your plan, Otherwise I would side with state.
 
SageCountry,

I believe that most non-resident hunters which are hunting on private lands will continue to have access to those private lands. I believe most of the DIY hunters are hunting on public lands and what we are talking about will not change their ability to access public lands.

WY SFW is opposed to the current proposed license fee increases whether or not anything else happens. I have spoken with too many people (both resident & non-resident hunters) that have said they are also opposed to paying more for what we are getting now. We need to insist that our G&F Department is sustainable via hunting/fishing/trapping licenses in order to keep their focus on hunters/anglers/trappers as they manage our vast wildlife resources.
 
SMOKESTICK---I think you are really dreaming if you think they are going to be able to manage the vast wildlife resources, as you put it, just on license money alone in the future without literally gutting what many probably feel are important parts of the Department. There are surely a number of things that can be done more efficiently like game surveys, record keeping, etc. However, that will not save them the millions of dollars we are talking about. A major problem is that they are mandated to do so much more now than just a decade or two ago with little or no incoming money, other than license fees, to accomplish those tasks. Several that readily come to mind are the money spent on wolves, grizzly bears, and ferret restoration with no money coming in from licenses to even hunt those species until the recent wolf delisting and resultant season. That small amount of license money probably won't buy one new PU for a Warden! Some nonfishermen might say to eliminate the stocking of fish and close the hatcheries. Others that don't hunt small game might say to eliminate the stocking of pheasants that are costing $20+ per bird for what seems to cater to a very few people in the overall scheme of things. With the G&F having to cut tag numbers in many areas due to decreasing big game populations, that takes even more money away from the source that you feel should be used to run the Department. I really don't think that even if they did those closings I mentioned and increase the licenses in 2014 in the amounts they are proposing that they will come close to what they say they need to run the Department. IMHO they are going to have to get revenue from other sources in the near future and several have already mentioned some possibilities in this thread. It will take some doing and a motel room tax, possibly a small percentage tax on fast food sales, or something similar or a combination of several things is going to have to be instituted in the near future to resolve the situation.
 
I hunt both private and public in Wyoming. You can never have enough access. Resident and Non Resident should be treated equally. In regards to the fee increases, I told the G&F that they would decrease the number of NR DIY hunters that live in close proximity to Wyoming. The NR hunter who lives in Kentucky will most likely, be a one time visitor, or at least will not come every year, so an icrease in fees is not that improtant to him. As a NR who lives only 70 miles from the boarder,I choose to hunt in Wyoming every year. I told the G&F that if there was an increase in fees, my hunting behavior would change. I would only use Wyoming as a "destination hunt", only applying for the best areas and when I drew out, would not be likely to return. There is simply no way that I am going to spend $1000.00 on an unproven elk area.
 
TOPGUN,

I have spoken with several retired G&F people and they have all told me the same thing......the G&F department needs to cut their budget by 15%. That would mean out of a $75 million dollar budget, you could cut $11,250,000.

Wyoming already is getting money from the general fund to cover wolf management costs. Grizzly bears are entirely a different story and costs Wyoming approximately $2 million annually.

I do believe it is all about where their priorities are. If there is more need for specific purposes then the G&F should be able to articulate the cost/benefit to the state for that specific species. Mule deer and antelope has always been their bread & butter. They sure do not act like it is as big of a concern to them as I believe they should. We do not need to be maximizing the number of predators on the landscape and should be addressing some potential areas which might be in a predator pit scenario. One thing I do believe we all can agree on is that something needs to change in regards to mule deer management. This species has been in decline since the 70's and blaming poor habitat conditions has not appeared to help mule deer numbers rebound. Perhaps if mule deer were more of a priority, we would see more emphasis on all aspects of management not just blame it on poor habitat.
 

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Screenshot_20201117-185425_Instagram.jpg
9441B461-1FC5-4902-9EEF-D4BC2BDCEC84.jpeg
C36CA601-4FA2-4B0B-99EA-A3A12DDC7066.jpeg
34 incher.jpg
8EF240B6-6DA1-4095-9EBF-B033F19885CB.jpeg
P1000827.JPG
DBE4C03B-0633-4FA5-B7CA-73ED3E3A5850.jpeg
100_1460.JPG
trail cam 1.png
96F49153-F79A-4E0D-906E-22ED799B162D.jpeg
D4289882-C9CD-4F95-B5C2-A7F63A514998.jpeg
B6E163F0-FF29-46DE-A418-3187E91E2062.jpeg

Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Badger Creek Outfitters

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

Urge 2 Hunt

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

J & J Outfitters

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


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses
Back
Top Bottom