WY Game and fish budget...

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-13 AT 11:19AM (MST)[p]I was unable to attend, but apparently about 90 people let the TRW committee know how they feel about fully funding the G&F.

With the exception of Bob Wharff and WYSFW, everyone else was on the same page....

http://wyofile.com/dustin/hunters-anglers-restore-wyoming-game-and-fish-budget/

Approximately 30 members of the public addressed the committee. Many of them said that while they appreciate the cost-cutting exercise that the legislature has imposed on the Game and Fish Department, the department has been forced to slash so much from its operations that it can no longer appropriately manage wildlife resources in the state.

The department was forced to trim some $2 million from its 2013 budget, another $4.6 million from its 2014 budget, and it is preparing to trim millions more for 2015 and beyond. Lost are public access programs, youth education and recruitment programs, along with some game wardens and field biologists. Fish hatchery upgrades worth approximately $463,000 have been postponed. The department will cut back on fishery stocking in 2014, and $350,000 was eliminated for conservation easements and land acquisitions to expand public access for fishing and hunting.

Seventeen-year-old Haley Powell, a Rock Springs High School student, told lawmakers that blocking investments in wildlife management today will have serious repercussions for her generation. Powell said she'd planned on participating in a Wyoming Game and Fish youth program this summer, but the program was recently cut. She asked how Wyoming Game and Fish can expect to draw support from hunters, fishermen and others if the industry is not successfully recruiting the next generations? ?In order to really benefit our future we really need to have a fully-funded Wyoming Game and Fish,? Powell said.

Trevor Stevenson, executive director of the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, said that a budget-cutting-only approach is no long-term solution to concerns that Wyoming Game and Fish may have grown too big over the years. He said that wildlife management must be based on sound biological science or the state will not be able to properly manage wildlife species. ?Defunding wildlife biologists is not going to help the situation,? Stevenson testified.

Neil Thagard, western outreach director for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance, was pointed in his criticism of legislators? actions regarding the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. ?In the last legislative session, our elected officials chose to cut one of the state?s best revenue streams, and by doing so you failed us,? said Thagard, underscoring the fact that hunting and fishing generates $1.1 billion in annual revenues to the state. ?If you were my financial advisor, I'd fire each and every one of you.?

Thagard then took aim at the motives of the legislative committee. He said the committee?s deliberations on this budget discussion have been scheduled for times and places ? during a weekday in Teton Village, for example ? where average, working hunters and anglers are unlikely to attend. Thagard said he's spoken with a former Game and Fish employee who said the committee didn't want to hear from former state employees or non-governmental organization representatives on the Wyoming Game and Fish budget matter.

Committee cochairman Sen. Bruce Burns (R-Sheridan) took offense to the comment. ?I've been on this committee for 10 years, and the notion that this committee has worked to exclude anybody ? NGOs or anybody else ? I find insulting. This committee has never done that,? said Burns.

 

[BenHuntn]

I just got off the phone with Marti Halverson. From what she said the Game and fish need to trim the fat. They need to spend more time and effort increasing mule deer numbers instead of spending money on some of the programs they have. I realize research is important however they have been studying the mule deer long enough. It's time to take a different approach and increase mule deer numbers by different means. I have to go now but I will return to further discuss.

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-13 AT 01:57PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-13 AT 01:35?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-13 AT 01:33?PM (MST)

I'd recommend to Marti Halverson that she dig a litter deeper into the discussion and maybe in the future have the listening ears on. The cut all government/ tea-bagger types need to realize that only 14% of the Wyoming Game and Fish funding comes from the general fund. How about the TRW committee trim some fat and quit meeting in Teton Village???

Hunters and Fishermen pay the bulk of the bills. Further, in a recent poll of the Sporting group I'm a co-chair of, about 90% of our membership never miss an opportunity to vote(hint there to the TRW committee). Maybe those paying the bills should be the ones deciding on the level of funding we're willing to pay for proper game and fish management.

I'd be paying attention to the heavy-hitters that were in that room at the TRW committee hearing and what they had to say if it were me.

The TRW committee members should wake up to the fact they were just put on notice...

Oh, BTW, did you happen to ask Marti how many hunting or fishing licenses she bought last year?

I've testified in front of both the House and Senate TRW committees...(I'll refrain from being blunt and say this instead of what I want to)not many hunters or fishermen in that group.

I find it ironic they'd pretend to know where to spend money to "fix" something they dont support or have any knowledge of.

Even more amazing, theres people gullible enough to hand them that kind of control...WOW!

 

[Triple_BB]

I know the Wyoming Wildlife Fed has been pushing hard for fee increases. They did a call to members and non members just recently asking them to write the TRW supporting their efforts. I wrote the TRW and my rep requesting they pass legislation. Also got a few other friends to do the same. Heard from a friend the G&F just let one of their guy's go who handles habitat and access acquisition. He said supposedly that stuff is going to take a big hit in the next couple years if fee's aren't increased. The legislature basically mandated that the G&F had to make their own cuts this year by not raising fee's. If the G&F wants to play hardball, the easiest way to do it is just cut those programs hunters and fishermen value the most. Once people start seeing their privileges and opportunities taken away, they'll be on the phone raising hell with their elected officials. I'm betting we'll see license fee's increased during next years session and if not, they'll certainly be raised the following year. Another prediction, non-rezi's will take the brunt of it...

 

[BuzzH]

I'd say habitat and access are pretty high on the priority list of hunters and fishermen...

It was just a few months ago that Bob Wharff was railing the G&F for "purposely making cuts as painful as possible".

As to the funding...I'm hearing some things, and thats all I can say at this point.

 

[G14]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-13 AT 03:23PM (MST)[p]Isn't Steve Kilpatrick the Executive Director of the WY Wildlife Federation? A retired G&F biologist. The whole organization is ran by retired WY G&F. That's like my retired buddies supporting a raise for me. The WY Wildlife Federation gets a ton of Commissioners Tags, so of course they are going to support fee increases. Don't bite the hand that has all the food.

 

[nfh]

What I understand is that the feds cut 50 million from Wyoming. I thought I heard on the radio that Wyoming will get that 50 million back in 2014, so will the game and fish get a cut of that???????

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-13 AT 05:14PM (MST)[p]What I understand is that the feds cut 50 million from Wyoming. I thought I heard on the radio that Wyoming will get that 50 million back in 2014, so will the game and fish get a cut of that???????


Why would the game and fish get a cut of that money?


Also, your "understanding" of the 53 million is lacking...

The Feds didnt "cut" the 53 million, they simply didnt pay WY for the mineral royalties they agreed to pay. Now they're paying.

Good luck with getting any of that 53 million appropriated for wildlife!

We have much more important things to do with that money...like start a state lottery, meetings in Jackson/Teton Village, try to put all Federal Lands in Wyoming under private and state ownership, etc. etc. etc.

You know, all good quality stuff thats really great for Wyoming Hunters, Fishermen, and Wildlife.

 

[BuzzH]

G14,

Maybe you'd feel better if the WWF was run by a bunch of lawyers, real-estate agents, and PETA types?

Nobody has the best interest of wildlife in mind like PETA, Lawyers, Real-estate agents, and the like.

The last thing WWF needs, with regard to leadership, is a bunch of educated biologists with successful careers and hundreds of years of combined experience...

WOW!

Funny though, not a peep out of you regarding the TRW committee being comprised largely of non-hunters???

WOW! Just WOW!

 

[BuzzH]

G14,

Care to list that "ton" of commissioners tags that WWF gets?

You can find that "ton" here:

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/commiss...95442396F4352792F57647174677A4B6430754B673D3D

 

[G14]

As always you missed the point Buzz. The point was the Federation isn't going to go against the Game and Fish's agenda. I agree in 2013 the Federation didn't get a ton of tags. Off the top my head, I believe they received a lot more in previous years. I will research that some more later.

I was just making people aware that the WY Wildlife Federation isn't objective to the license fee increases, and pointing out why they are not objective.

As far as speaking out against the TRW, nope never have. I have voiced my concern over Commissioners not being hunters though. How about you?

 

[elkantlers]

What happens to the $6,745,275 that Wyoming receives from the Pittman-robertson act?

I really don't know, don't tear my head off Buzzh.

 

[marburg]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-13 AT 06:37PM (MST)[p]If Wyoming has as many teatards as the area I live in does the state is doomed. Teatards will never support any government entity that has employees who draw salaries. If they have their way government will vanish and everything will be run by private interests catering only to those who will pay top dollar.

 

[BenHuntn]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-13 AT 10:39PM (MST)[p]The Fed Excise tax and the sale of license money make up about 75% of Game and fish budget. I think the rest comes from the general fund. Depending on the sale of licenses to fund the lions share of the dept. is a bad idea. The majority of the budget needs to come from an alternative source of funding so they are not dependent on license revenues. Let me know if you need further clarification. I am a firm believer that some problems you can't just keep pumping in money and expect to solve the problem. The legislature is very powerful and has too much control. I think some of the increase in gas tax should go to Game and Fish seeing that hunters and fishermen create a ton of revenue for the state.

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-30-13 AT 10:51PM (MST)[p]BenHuntn...you should "think" less and try bringing some actual facts to the table.

Heres a bunch of budget information...lots here to look at for those inclined to get actual answers instead of guessing:

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

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department receives 60% of its funding from sportsmen and sportswomen through license fees and 20% from excise taxes on sporting good purchases, 15% from external grants, and 5% through the state?s general fund.

Its no wonder hunters are all over the map with all the "facts" they hear, get from their neighbors, or flat pull out of their arse.

While I agree that alternative funding sources are needed for the future, currently there is nothing wrong with hunters funding 60% of the G&F budget through license sales. Hunters and fishermen have always stepped up as the leaders in conservation, its what we do. Its what we'll continue to do.

To properly fund the G&F its going to take alternative funding sources AND hunters/fishermen digging even deeper into their wallets. No way around it.

It seems that the 90 people that showed up in Teton Village agree...and from what I'm hearing, so do the heavy hitters that are active in the G&F arena.

 

[nontypical]

I'm not so sure those 90 folks that attended this conference speak for the bulk of Wyoming hunters. I'm also quite certain that they speak for whatever special interest group they happen to belong to or are employed by.

The group I belong to invited John Emmerich(Former 2nd in command at G&F before he recently retired) to one of our meetings prior to the last legislative session convening. As a group, we were in favor of the license fee increases being asked for by the dept. Emmerich was quite shocked to hear that, because according to him, over 90% of all the comments being received by WGF from the public were in opposition to any license fee increases. Perhaps comments received by legislators differed from that, but I really can't see how they would be much different(if at all). Much like BUZZH referring to the TRW committee being put on alert at the Teton conference, G&F was put on alert at the time by the legislature that they needed to trim some fat.

Though I am not against license fee increases, I am still under the impression that most Wyoming hunters( res and non-res)are adamantly opposed to any increases. This is in part due to public mistrust of G&F to adequately manage our wildlife. Also, people with larger families would be paying possibly hundreds of dollars more in license fees per year.

Although the temptation by the dept could be to deliberately hit us with cuts that they know would hurt us most, it's my contention that this tact would be counter-productive in the long run to the dept; further increasing public mistrust and dislike towards WGF. Hopefully, they realize this and don't go down that road.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease; I'm just not sure that the groups that attended the TRW conference will generate enough "grease" to change the attitudes of those on the committee if they keep hearing from the majority of hunters opposed to license fee increases. It may take a few years for sportsmen to be personally affected by budget cuts. That's when the real crying will start.

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-31-13 AT 08:41PM (MST)[p]nontypical,

I'm not sure if the 90 people who attended represent every hunter either...but they DID show up and voice their opinion.

I guess they're the "squeaky wheels"...yes?

I'll also go out on a limb and say that if your group is in favor of license fee increases, they'll be on the side that gets their way.

Its also fair to note that the house TRW committee was made up of many new members. Included in that group were a couple tea-bagger types that wouldnt have voted for a fee increase come hell or high water...good reason or not.

In reality to the situation, I dont have a problem with the legislature having control of the 5% of the budget that comes from the general fund. However, for them to have 100% of the control, when they "fund" such a small portion is ridiculous and frankly a crock of chit.

I also contend that the folks on the TRW committee better keep in mind that the hook-and-bullet crowd are active voters. They dont like the Legislature (and in particular a bunch of committee members that dont even hunt, fish or buy licenses) telling them how they should spend the money they willing paid to support the G&F.

Information spreads fast these days, and if the TRW committee wants to continue down the road as teabagger obstructionists to funding an agency that is responsible for over 1 billion a year in revenue to the state of Wyoming...expect a sizing for a 3XL asshat come next election cycle. Note that there were a lot of different groups in that TRW hearing...not just hunters and anglers. Hunting/fishing means big money to a lot of Wyoming businesses.

I have no problem with hunters and anglers "in-fighting" about how best to manage fish and game. I think good can come from differing opinions on that front. Thats a whole different thing than having those without the first clue regarding wildlife management gerry-mandering into policy, funding, and decision making.

That simply never works...ever. The insane can not be running the asylum...period.

 

[tagsoup]

Maybe it's been asked and maybe it hasn't. If the 2012 budget was operating in the black why does $2 million dollars need to be cut from the 2013 budget to keep it in the black? Where did that $2 million go? To increased spending? Or was there a loss of revenue? And the same goes for having to cut $4.6 million from the 2014 budget. It seems strange that that the budget needs to increase by $6.6 million over two years to continue operating in the black.


"Go hunt for meat at Walmart."

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-31-13 AT 09:54PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-31-13 AT 09:52?PM (MST)

Here you go...

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/WGFD/pdfs/FY14BUDGETAPPROVED0004347.pdf

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/WGFD/pdfs/FY14BUDGETSUMMARY0004344.pdf

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/WGFD/pdfs/FY14BUDGETAPPROVED0004347.pdf

To answer your question, the WYG&F has been asked to do "more with less" for a long time.

That cant continue forever, there reaches a point where you are forced to do "less with less"...and thats the point we're at.

 

[elkantlers]

I'm still not convinced that Wyoming is in as bad a shape as people are making it out to be. It looks like they had a budget of $65,203,505 in 2011 and their Budget for 2014 is $71,495,687. That is an increase of just over 6 million.

I also feel that I pay plenty to hunt Wyoming. As a NR I paid just over $500 dollars for Points for my family. That is a lot of money for basically the right to play their game. Plus $560 or so for a special antelope tag. So basically, This year I sent Wyoming over $1000 dollars for an Antelope tag.

So now tell me that they need more from me. Wyoming needs to do just as I and other people have to do: Receive a paycheck(budget), Pay the bills, see what's left over to play with, make adjustments where needed, cut out some unnecessary thing and live with the choices.

 

[BuzzH]

LAST EDITED ON Aug-31-13 AT 11:10PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-31-13 AT 11:10?PM (MST)

Depends on what you view as bad and where your interests lie...

Cutting things like fish stocking, access programs, education, etc. thats bad for a lot of sportsmen.

You didnt basically pay 1k for an antelope tag, you willingly paid 560 and not a cent more.

You also made the choice to spend 500 on points for your family.

Your example of a family budget, while a good "theory" isnt exactly an accurate one.

It would be more accurate if your neighbors and friends started making demands of your family budget and a committee of outsiders started telling you how and where you're to spend it.

BTW, I do agree with you that NR fees are plenty high. I'd rather see Resident fees increased and keep the NR fees where they're at. NR's already pay more than their fair share and thank you for spending your money in Wyoming.

 

[elkantlers]

Your right, I did willingly paid the fees. I am grateful that I have the means to do so. I also know that we are pricing some people out of the game. The higher tags prices become the closer to a "rich mans sport" hunting becomes.

I know that Wyoming is in a tough spot with their budget and I hope all ends up well. I just get the feeling that they think it is easier to raise fees than to make other changes. Every Wyoming employee from managers to officers should be able to identify little things that can be done to save money. It may mean loosing some conveniences or doing thing differently. lots of little things do make a difference.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree with you that we should keep as many people in the game as possible.

However, even if the tags were free, there are lot of people that would be "priced out" as they dont have the fiscal responsibility to even afford gas for the drive to Wyoming.

I dont find the NR fees that out of line and those with a hint of desire can still afford to hunt the Western States. The tags are still very likely the cheapest part of a NR hunt.

I also agree with you that the WYG&F needs to run efficiently and look for any way they can to save money.

I think that advice would be sound for those that gripe and complain about the price of NR fees. Perhaps they should identify little things that can be done to save money so they can afford a tag. It may mean losing some conviences or doing things differently...lots of small things do make a difference.

 

[tagsoup]

LAST EDITED ON Sep-01-13 AT 11:45PM (MST)[p]It seems to me that they are doing less with more money. They have a $65 million budget in 2011 and then increase it to $77 million in 2012. And Now they complain when the 2014 budget is still going to be $71.5 milliion. Which is $6 million more than there budget was in 2011. Sounds like typical government over spending to me. At the rate they have been increasing there budget it would have been close to $100 million in 2020.

And thanks for posting those links buzz. That is a lot of good information.


"Go hunt for meat at Walmart."

 

[quest]

Its all moot if you raise tags on NR's because less will come. The deer herd are down, the economy bad and the list goes on... One way Wyoming could raise revenue on NR's without raising prices is to have them buy a hunting license before they could put in for the draw. If they didnt get drawn they would only get money back for the tag. No yelling aloud lol!

 

[elkantlers]

LAST EDITED ON Sep-02-13 AT 01:32PM (MST)[p]I think making NR Wyoming hunters buy a hunting license before entering the draw is a bad idea. They already have super expensive points. $100 sheep $75 Moose $50 elk $40 deer $30 pronghorn. Utah makes NR hunters buy a hunting license but points are only $10 apiece.

If they continue to hammer the NR hunter it will end up biting them in the butt, Just like Idaho.

 

[Triple_BB]

>If they continue to hammer the NR hunter it will end up biting >them in the butt, Just like Idaho.

Comparing Idaho to Wyoming is apples and oranges. Idaho doesn't have a preference points system nor do they allocate a certain percentage of tags to non rezi's.

>Its all moot if you raise tags on NR's because less will come.

Doubtful. With most non rezi limited quota deer, elk and antelope areas, demand far exceeds supply. If they were to raise rates to the point where demand just slightly exceeded available tags, they will maximize revenues and still sell all their tags. The key would be to leave pioneer and youth fee's alone. And then price leftover tags at a lower rate.

Bottom line is the legislature has some tough decisions to make. I know both of my reps. I'm looking forward to talking with them in December or so to see what kind of pressure they're feeling going into next years session...

 

[nontypical]

One thing to remember is that the upcoming session is a budget session. Any bills that are not budget-related must be passed by at least a 2/3 majority.

 

[elkantlers]

>Doubtful. With most non rezi
>limited quota deer, elk and
>antelope areas, demand far exceeds
>supply. If they were
>to raise rates to the
>point where demand just slightly
>exceeded available tags, they will
>maximize revenues and still sell
>all their tags.

Just like I said above. If you raise price you will price some people out of the game. I know that Wyoming would probably sell all their tags if the price was increased. But all it does is continue to give preference to people with higher incomes. I know people that are wanting the higher prices because they know a lot of people will drop out and the odds of drawing a tag will get a lot better. I disagree with pricing some people out to better my odds.
I am OK with a Very slight increase, but nothing in the range that was proposed previously.

 

[BuzzH]

Like I said above, you could literally give tags away and you'd price some people out of the game.

I do agree with you that the there reaches a point where price becomes the deciding factor, we're not very close to that point.

Based on YOUR choice to spend $560 for a "special priced" antelope tag, you've now become part of the very problem you claim is "pricing some people out".

Funny that you disagree with pricing people out to improve draw odds, then turn right around and participate in special priced draw that does just that???

WOW! Thats impressive.

I'd also like to ask you when hunting as a NR in other states became a god-given right?

If you want to hunt on the cheap, the State you live in is a great choice. I never hunted out of state until 1995 largely because I couldnt afford it. What I didnt do is whine about the costs. What I did do is hunt in-state, got an education, and improved my financial situation so I could afford it. That included moving out of the State I was born in.

I also think your point about the G&F being fiscally responsible and cost savings where they can to improve efficiency is a good one. I think NR hunters should to the same in regard to personal fiscal responsibility if they want to afford tags.

I dont think theres anyone that couldnt give up some "conviences" in their everyday life that would allow them to save enough to afford nearly any NR permit and the associated costs of the hunt. I'd shovel my neighbors drive-way or pick up beer cans before I'd give up hunting...and thats a fact.

What this boils down to is personal accountability and choices. NR fees should not be based on keeping everyone in the NR hunting game. Its never been that way in the past and wont be in the future.

 

[elkantlers]

Like I said, I am grateful that I can afford to spend some money on out of state hunts.
I also said that if Wyo increased their prices that they would sell their tags, probably to me. I still don't like that it prices people I know out.

quote.."I'd also like to ask you when hunting as a NR in other states became a god-given right?"
Careful with this statement. State lines mean nothing to me when it comes to my God given rights. Hunting or otherwise. And yes, Hunting is a god given right.

I also think that Wyoming, or any other state, should "give up some conveniences" before they raise tag prices.

""What this boils down to is personal accountability and choices. NR fees should not be based on keeping everyone in the NR hunting game. Its never been that way in the past and wont be in the future.""
I know you don't like SFW, But that sound like something SFW would come up with. Tags to the highest bidder. Pay to play.

 

[BuzzH]

I personally think all you're really worried about is yourself.

If raising fees 10% every 4 years is going to "price out people you know", they werent serious to start with.

Hunting is not a god-given right...period. In particular in States other than those you live in. In case you missed it, States have the legal authority to discriminate against NR hunters. God or no God, state lines are a legal authority.

Hunting is a privilege...not a right.

As to your SFW comment...you're wrong. I'm not asking Wyoming or any other state to sell tags to the highest bidders. A fee increase across the board has ZERO to do with it.

I dont give a chit what you think, the price of the tag is the cheapest part of any NR hunt. Travel, vehicles, airplane tickets, ammo, rifles, spotting scopes, decoys, travel trailers, atv's, food, clothing, knives, game bags, gps's...all that chit far out-price the cost of any tag.

Good grief, most on this board pay more for yearly internet access, cable TV, or cell phones than a NR antelope tag...by a landslide.

I'll not be listening to any more crazy talk of a fee increase pricing anyone out. Anyone with even a remote desire to hunt out of state can, and always will be able to.

 

[junior]

Typical politics! The private sector vs public sector. Its very obvious the public sector.

 

[BuzzH]

Translator...anyone?

 

[marburg]

I think you can estimate pretty closely the number of people who would be impacted by a fee increase simply by looking at the increase in this years draw and the resulting point swing. How many people jumped out of the points game and cashed in this year? Judging by the point swing there were a decent number but nothing close to having any serious impact next two years from now if those same folks stop putting in. As much as I don't want to see it happen I think the fee increase is coming.

 

[elkantlers]

Buzz I figured that SFW comment would get you pisse@ off.

Read the bible, God gives me my rights, not states or anyone else. If you don't believe in the Bible, I could care less.

Typical Buzz, If he doesn't agree with you he starts insulting you.

 

[junior]

Translate private sector versus public sector? Really?

 

[inarcher]

LAST EDITED ON Sep-04-13 AT 08:24AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Sep-04-13 AT 04:01?AM (MST)

"the price of the tag is the cheapest part of any NR hunt"

Might want to change "any" to "most". Pretty sure the $1400+ price tag on the moose tag will be the largest expense of my upcoming hunt. Already have my own gear. Camping is free. I have to eat regardless of where I am. Basically, we're talking gas money....which should end up about half the cost of that one tag. I'm not complaining mind you...just pointing that out. Very excited to have that tag in my pocket!

If there is one thing about us NR's...it is the fact most are willing to pay for the experience...especially those of us that live in states that don't offer the same opportunities. The politicians know this...and raising the cost of my tags doesn't cost them votes.

My total bill from Wyoming Fish and Game for 2013 currently stands at $2,665.50 (not including convenience fees). That price includes the moose tag, special antelope and deer tags, archery permit, conservation stamp, ORV permit, fishing license and an elk point (for next year, LOL). Should I factor in the cost of the twenty one NR points it took to get those tags?

This is my vacation. I plan to be in Wyoming at least three, maybe as many as four weeks. I figure the total cost of this hunt will end up about half what I spent last year on a two week DIY caribou hunt on the North Slope of Alaska. Heck, the wife and I dropped more coin on a five day trip to New York city!

Am I happy to see NR price increases? Absolutely not. Has a tag price increase ever stopped me from applying? Absolutely not. Life is short. I'm on the other side of fifty...and I don't know how many more years I'll be able to do this. Figure my best bet is to treat each one as if it is the last (within my personal financial limits of course).

So, I'm not here to complain about NR tag prices. It is what it is....supply and demand. If you build it, they will come. It all adds up to a large portion of the funding for WY F&G...and there are worse places to spend one's money. If I were wanting to complain, it would be about the fact my tags aren't any good in a Wilderness area. Now THAT is something worth complaining about!

Good luck to all.
Paul

p.s. To those NR's that are chomping at the bit to jump all over this post: For the record, I am an hourly worker...that works ALOT more hours than I should....just to be able to afford to do what I love. No silver spoons here....not even close.

 

[Triple_BB]

>Might want to change "any" to "most". Pretty sure the $1400+
>price tag on the moose tag will be the largest expense of my >upcoming hunt.

Sounds like you got a bargain! I sent in considerably more than that for a chance at a Colorado moose tag. I think I sent in the same for mt. goat...

 

[BuzzH]

I figured that SFW comment would get you pisse@ off.

Nope, you're wrong again. The SFW analogy was ridiculous. I'm 100% in favor of the NAM, seeking non-traditional funding for G&F agencies, and giving all interested (legitimate) parties a seat at the table. I'm dead set against transferable landowner tags, Ranching for Wildlife programs, and outfitter only licenses.

I'm not trying to kill access, create more governors tags, or defund the G&F.

Thats as close to a 180 from SFW as a person can get.

Read the bible, God gives me my rights, not states or anyone else. If you don't believe in the Bible, I could care less.

Go out and shoot a big-game animal without a tag and see if "god" takes care of your day in court. I could equally care less that you believe in the bible. Religion has nothing to do with the cost of a NR hunting license, G&F regulations, or anything to do with hunting.

Typical Buzz, If he doesn't agree with you he starts insulting you

Please point out all the "insults"...

 

[elkantlers]

LOL

 

[inarcher]

>>Might want to change "any" to "most". Pretty sure the $1400+
>>price tag on the moose tag will be the largest expense of my >upcoming hunt.
>
>Sounds like you got a bargain!
> I sent in considerably
>more than that for a
>chance at a Colorado moose
>tag. I think I
>sent in the same for
>mt. goat...

I hear you brother! Colorado moose tag is pushing 2K these days.
Thinking that tag was about $1200 cheaper when I first started applying for limited licenses.

 

[nontypical]

BUZZ and I have differed on many points. But he is spot on with this, IMO. The state of Wyoming doesn't owe anyone a hunt-even poor folks(although that is a major concern for G&F). If you think hunting is too expensive, then it's just not high enough on your priority list. If you hunt because you need the meat, then you are already behind the 8-ball. Much cheaper to buy it from the supermarket.

Some folks spend money on race cars or golf or other hobbies. I hunt and fish. That's what I spend my money on. Paying $100 more a year to do that in Wy won't even phase me. Pretty sure the milk I drink is more expensive than it was 5 years ago, too. If you drop out of hunting because it costs too much, then it wasn't that important to you to begin with.

Arizona just raised their license fees. Won't slow me down any. I'll still apply there every year. Paying more in all the states I apply for is just part of playing the game I live for.

Stuff costs more now than it did 5 years ago. Why should hunting licenses be any different?

 

[WapitiBob]

Well said, nontypical.

 

[elkantlers]

I never said I wanted the tags free, I just said they are high enough. I said that the Wyo G&F needs to look at how they spend their money before raising prices on tags.

Race cars and golf are not owned by the public and managed by the government. They are privately owned things that people can choose to buy or not.

Game animals are a public owned resource and should be managed as such. When we start treating them as a money maker we have a problem.

 

[BuzzH]

elkantlers,

The WYG&F already has "looked at how they spend their money"...read the links I provided. They've made significant cuts to staffing, wages, etc. etc. etc. Its all there, black and white, crystal clear.

Disposable income is disposable income, and if you choose to be a consumptive user of the publics resources, you'll be paying for it...and rightfully so! You have the absolute right to choose not to buy NR tags...or even hunt for that matter.

The public resources are not there for you and your so called "god given" right to plunder at the expense of the State or ALL of its Citizens.

Oh, and if your discontented about the G&F charging for a deer tag, elk tag, fishing licenses etc. (in your words treating them like a money-maker), then I suggest you run right out and find some alternative funding.

If you arent going to be part of the solution, you're clearly part of the problem...if only obviously.