WY License fee increases...

BuzzH

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
6,067
During the last Legislative session, the WYG&F asked the legislature to increase license fees via 3-4 bills.

At the same time that was happening, behind the scenes, a couple groups were beating up the G&F and asking for the G&F to downsize and work "within" their means. The main culprit(s) being WYSFW and a couple of Wyoming Senators and Representatives.

All the fee increase bills were shot down, and to add insult to injury, the WYG&F was taken to the woodshed via a pretty severe budget cut at the hands of the Legislature. Many of the Sportsmens groups in Wyoming were caught off-guard as in the past, most license fee increases were more of a formality.

That budget cut resulted in some tough choices by the G&F, and some access programs were cut, fish stocking, the annual Sportsmens expo, etc.

Sportsmen, and various Sportsmens Groups, felt that pain and have responded by forming a "coalition" or "association" of groups that want full funding for the WYG&F.

You can view a recent press release here:

http://wyofile.com/dustin/invest-game-and-fish/

There are 2 main bills that the "coalition" of groups is wanting to see passed and both are currently drafts:

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/interimC...SO-0162.W1.pdf

This bill is asking for general fund money be used to for G&F employee's health benefits, fund the elk feeding program, and also grizzly bear management. Total cost is estimated at around 4-6 million.

The second bill would ask for an across the board license fee increase of 10% for all licenses for both R and NR hunters.

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/interimC...SO-0078.L1.pdf

Last week, Representatives from the "wyoming sportsmens association", all met with Governor Mead to discuss the importance of these bills to G&F funding and ultimately Wyomings wildlife resources. With an operation budget of 71-73 million, the investment in wildlife returns about 1.1 billion directly to Wyomings economy. Not too shabby.

I was suprised how receptive Governor Mead was. He was in support of both bills, but in particular the bill asking for some general fund money.

Probably the biggest surprise is that Governor Mead also asked for the support of our "assication" of groups with helping to sway the Legilslature to continue funding the Wyoming Wildlife Trust. He also made a recommendation that a blue-ribbon task force be appointed to look at solving long-term funding issues with the G&F. He expressed his desire to not have to go through these funding issues every year or two, and would like to see the G&F fully funded.

Now is a good time to start thinking about this issue, making contacts, etc.. I'll see to it that its kept on the radar as the budget session kicks off.
 
I would bet in the end it will be the most palatable to the resident voters to pass the cost onto the NR hunters as usual. problem solved.

That said WY is my favorite state to hunt in so I'll pay whatever it cost. it's worth it.













Stay thirsty my friends
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-13 AT 02:38AM (MST)[p]Thanks Buzz for all the links and info.

I still think a simple Hunting License for all---ressy's/non-ressy's would help with a lot of this $$ pain...


$30 for ressy's/$15 for ressy Youth......even to apply for the few 'point only' species.

$60 for non-ressy's/$30 for non-ressy Youth.....even to apply just for all the point code options available to all non-ressy hunters.


Thanks again,

Robb
 
440,

I dont think the TRW committee will allow a NR only fee increase. As it stands right now, its an across the board incrase of 10% for all hunters/fishermen, including youth.

I'd personally like to see Resident fees increased more than 10%...perhaps about 15-20%.

I'd also like to see NR fees remain flat, or an increase of only around 5%.

IMO, the NR hunters are already being hit pretty hard license fee wise, while the Residents skate. With Residents also paying NO STATE income tax, its pretty hard for them to make the claim that they're supporting wildlife any other way.

If both of these bills pass, it looks like the G&F budget will be fairly stable for a few years.

Between now and then, it would be nice to see the task force assigned by the Governor and a long-term funding solution, with non-traditional funding sources, figured out.

Enough of kicking the crap out of NonResident hunters and asking them to make up for the G&F shortfalls time and time again.

There are a lot of user groups that benefit greatly from wildlife...remember 1.1 billion in direct economic benefit.

Somebody is making a lot of money off the 60-62 million that hunters are contributing.

Time for them to step up...
 
I would be willing to pay more as a resident. I would like to see the sfw shut down to
 
I agree with Buzz and Nfh. I would pay more as a resident, but don't want to see my nonresident friends gouged much more at this point. It's tough enough at this point for good friends to come out and hunt without the increase.
 
Buzz, it sounds like you have a handle on it.

What residents should understand is a 10% increase on a NR Bighorn tag is $226 , isn't that about double what a resident tag costs? I think they're about $120. so that would make a NR bighorn tag about $2500 clams. add years of $100 point fees to that and it's starting to seem a little like a hose job.

A 10% increase on an elk tag alone would be more than a resident tag costs. that's a little messed up. WY residents have no idea how good they have it to be able to hunt every year over the counter, and to do it for almost free is just a bonus.

As a NR hunter in WY I realize I'm footing the bill for the residents but as I said before I'll pay whatever it cost and I don't resent it. the hunting is great and so far the resident hunters have been great to me I have no complaints. but if you can figure out where the money drain is so we can make it without pouring the pork to me again it would be appreciated.











Stay thirsty my friends
 
Never mind that the Director of the G&F Department admitted they once sold 50,000 non-resident deer licenses and now sale only 10,000 non-resident licenses.

Sportsmen are being asked to pay more for less.

I might remind all of you, it was the G&F Department which stated that hunting and fishing licenses could no longer sustain them. Perhaps they should make mule deer recovery one of their top priorities and they could recover their lost revenues due to declining mule deer populations.

Can Wyoming honestly accept this kind of performance?

40,000 non-resident mule deer licenses which are no longer sold, would generate approximately $15.5 million dollars at todays license fees, assuming 1/3 were sold as special and the remaining 2/3 were sold at the regular non-resident price.

Bail out the G&F Department rather than fix our mule deer problems. The 10% increase is a lot easier to stomach until you see how little of a priority is given to real sportsmen's issues. Whether you are a fan of WY SFW or not, I would expect that members of monstermuleys would rather see mule deer made a priority than simply support increasing your fees and expecting something to change for the betterment of mule deer. The bottom line is that by supporting license fee increases, you are stating that mule deer are not in trouble and that WY G&F should continue to be fully funded by sportsmen with only 20% of the funding it once received from non-resident deer hunters.
 
I like hunting Wyoming. If the Non Res tags increase 10 % I am still coming as long as I drive a truck. It would still be a bargain compared to most western states.
 
I doubt the outfitters would let that happen.

Part of the reason the NR pays the outrageous point fees is because the NR quota is high enough we know it will pay off. cut the quota too low and it's not worth it. at one point my wife and I were dumping $590 every year in WY just for points fees, after drawing and dropping moose we're still paying $440. that's just point fees.

Run too many NR's off and resident tags will cost more than ours do now.
















Stay thirsty my friends
 
I'll have to disagree with Smokestick.

There is a lot of effort being put into mule deer in Wyoming. There isnt a single state in the country that isnt having problems with mule deer.

Theres lots of studies being done, lots of management strategies being tried, lots of habitat improvements being made.

To say that the WY G&F is ignoring mule deer and mule deer hunters is a flat lie and a crock of chit.

Smokestick, you are aware of the work regarding the PVMDI?

I'd be the first to criticize Wyoming if MT, ID, CO, NM, AZ, and in particular UTAH, etc. werent all experiencing problems with mule deer.

But they all are having trouble with mule deer...tags have been reduced in nearly all those states and mule deer populations have declined in all those states.

But, your wrong headed approach, along with your buddy Jaggi, to hamstring the G&F financially is not going to help solve the mule deer puzzle and turn things around. Mule deer management, all game management, costs money. Cutting funding on an agency that returns 1.1 billion for an investment of 70-73 million is about as a$$ backwards as it gets...on every level of logic and comprehension. Glad you have identified yourself and your group as the leader(s) of such great thought processes...congratulations?

I'm just thankful that new groups are emerging as the clear leaders in driving legislation, management, and in particular funding for the G&F. I'm also glad that Governor Mead is as well informed as he appears to be and that the right people now have his ear.
 
I pay for expensive tags in others states, so I would be willing to pay more here in Wyoming. 10% seems to be the norm in most of the western states and there is plenty of NR applying every year. I'm not against NR hunters, my father is a NR, just want more tags issued to resident hunters. I don't see hunters in other states pleading with their G n F to give out more NR tags.

I do think the G n F should receive additional funding from the state. How much funding does the Wyoming hwy patrol receive? I can tell you their troopers are paid much more than G n F LO.
 
That is about the biggest bunch of BS that Smokestick just made in his post since he made his last one some time ago, LOL! I think everyone in the know has seen what he and SFW stands for and it ain't good---nuff said!!!
 
I think Bob's numbers on NR deer license sales may be a little off. The ten year trend shows sales in 2003 at 34,125 compared to 2012 at 25,935.

But what's the real motive behind the SFW's battle against license fee increases? Could it be SFW Wy (Bob Wharff) is more concerned about the 1000 outfitter sponsered NR elk licenses they proposed earlier this year in a funding meeting in Lander? Or maybe it's back to landowner set-aside tags?

Well Bob?
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-13 AT 06:58AM (MST)[p]>I think Bob's numbers on NR
>deer license sales may be
>a little off. The ten
>year trend shows sales in
>2003 at 34,125 compared to
>2012 at 25,935.
>
>But what's the real motive behind
>the SFW's battle against license
>fee increases? Could it be
>SFW Wy (Bob Wharff) is
>more concerned about the 1000
>outfitter sponsered NR elk licenses
>they proposed earlier this year
>in a funding meeting in
>Lander? Or maybe it's back
>to landowner set-aside tags?
Well Bob?
>


***It got to the point some time ago that I don't trust a thing Bob says and this post of his is a good example why! There are approximately 20,000 Regional deer licenses available to NRs every year before you even start counting the LE unit tags. So much for his BS and what you stated about the SFW agenda that he keeps spouting, along with what he keeps under wraps so the general public doesn't know does not speak much for his integrity or honesty!!!
 
I guess I should have provided all the critics with my source for their references.

Here is the link to the article which was published in the Casper Star Tribune:

http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreati...cle_7a5ee928-0aae-5083-a36f-6a6f9ecc8001.html

I went back and read the article again. I did make a mistake, the article actually said over 50,000 deer licenses were sold. For those that cannot figure it out, I have provided a copy of the text to which I am referring:

"The department, Talbott said, uses the best scientific data to maintain the herds and to conserve and perpetuate species.

As an example, he said the state issued more than 50,000 nonresident deer licenses in the early 1970s. Today the state issues fewer than 10,000 nonresident deer licenses."

It is towards the bottom of the article for those which want to verify it.

WY SFW, as BuzzH claims in his very first post, was NOT operating in the dark or behind the scenes. Had BuzzH been to any of the meetings throughout the summer, he would have known that his statement was incorrect. From the beginning, just as WY SFW did in 2007, we tried to work with the G&F to come up some solutions. WY SFW had told the G&F Department in 2007 when we supported the license fee increase that we were concerned that fees; in particular, non-resident fees were getting too high. In 2009, both Idaho & Montana raised their license fees. WY SFW pointed out to the G&F that both these states were struggling to maintain or sustain non-resident license sales. By their own admission, the G&F Department acknowledged that every time license fees increased, the number of fishing licenses sold decreased. WY SFW was concerned that we were seeing a similar reaction occuring in other states who had increased fees beyond what a significant number of non-residents were willing to pay. WY SFW offered alternatives, alternatives which are included in one of the bills for 2014, but we were told the G&F didn't want to pursue them. They were only interested in the license fee increases.

The general fund bill will generate approximately $6.5 million and the 10% license fee increase bill will generate approximately another $3.5 million.

Both bills have been amended but since none of the guys talking about these bills were at the meetings, they do not know what amendments were made, nor the reasoning behind them.

During the 2013 legislative session, there was a bill which sought only to increase non-resident license fees. WY SFW was their and lobbied for its defeat.

Here is a quote from BuzzH (post #3): Enough of kicking the crap out of NonResident hunters and asking them to make up for the G&F shortfalls time and time again.

My response: How about enough kicking the crap out of all sportsmen and stop wasteful spending with the G&F Department? The G&F Department wants to point to state statutes that mandate they manage ALL wildlife within the state, then they dump money down the hole with a magazine that promotes tourism, not hunting, fishing or trapping. The way the G&F Commission fixes this problem is the cut the production down from 12 issues a year to 6 and that fixes the problem? No we still have a magazine paid for with sportsmen's dollars that promotes tourism. For those that don't understand this problem, the statutes DO NOT authorize nor mandate that the G&F Department promote tourism. Why should sportsmen sit back and allow that to happen?

In post #11, BuzzH disagrees with me and states:

"There is a lot of effort being put into mule deer in Wyoming. There isnt a single state in the country that isnt having problems with mule deer.

Theres lots of studies being done, lots of management strategies being tried, lots of habitat improvements being made."

Yes, the G&F Department is now starting to address mule deer concerns in some areas of the state. Platte Valley is one of those areas now getting some attention; however, where else are they agressively doing anything else for mule deer?

To date, several legislators have asked for a list of priorities from the G&F Department. A past Deputy Director stated that ALL wildlife is their priority. Why is it so hard for the G&F Department to state their priorities? This has caused some legislators and others to think that is because they have no priorities.

In the same post (#11), BuzzH states:

"But, your wrong headed approach, along with your buddy Jaggi, to hamstring the G&F financially is not going to help solve the mule deer puzzle and turn things around. Mule deer management, all game management, costs money. Cutting funding on an agency that returns 1.1 billion for an investment of 70-73 million is about as a$$ backwards as it gets...on every level of logic and comprehension. Glad you have identified yourself and your group as the leader(s) of such great thought processes...congratulations?"

Is it wrong headed to want to see more of our hunting/fishing license fees being used towards mule deer recovery? Is it wrong headed to ask for a prioritized list? Is it wrong headed to ask for some assessment of how our dollars are being applied? How else can we stop wasteful spending, if we do NOT ask for a comprehensive review of where are dollars are being spent? I know that as a federal empoyee, BuzzH, you might struggle with us asking where and how our money is being applied. It shouldn't take almost two years for the WY G&F Department or their Commission to state what their priorities are, should it?

And by the way, it was you that single out WY SFW in your very first post, so don't give me any more credit than I deserve.

jm77, hopefully, you can read the comments in the post and understand why WY SFW opposed the proposed license fee increases in 2013. Wyoming would have been the most expensive or the second most expensive place to hunt in the west. If you think the small amount the G&F Department cut was painful, can you imagine how painful it would have been if Wyoming failed to sale 50% of their non-resident elk and deer licenses? I am certain that would have led to much deeper and significantly more painful cuts.

I also find it ironic Jeff that you accuse me of something that never happened. I was in the room when the outfitters made their pitch but WY SFW never indicated any support of their request. You and TOPlapdogUN can question my intergrity and motives all you want but I have been truthful every time. You can try and twist my words, it doesn't matter to me. I doubt that WY SFW will ever support set aside landowner licenses; however, a voucher system might be in the works.

Dream on.....
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-13 AT 10:52AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-13 AT 10:32?AM (MST)

Bob,

So are we to believe actual numbers or a newspaper article in regard to deer tags sold? I dont doubt that in 1970 there were 50,000 deer tags sold. BFD, in the 1970's in Montana, you could shoot 2 mule deer bucks per hunter, with a 6 week rifle season, during the rut.

No chit theres less mule deer hunting opportunities in Wyoming...are you saying that MT, ID, CO, NM, AZ, UT, OR, WA, CA, are all seeing MORE opportunity now than in 1970?

As to your comments regarding "aggressively managing mule deer"...care to explain how they are to aggressively manage anything without a budget? How cheap is "aggressive management"???

Its also funny that you claim you "worked with WYG&F"...thats a lie. I talk with quite a few G&F employees and thats not anything in line with what I've heard. Offering up transferable landowner vouchers is hardly "working with the WYG&F to find budget solutions".

As far as the over-sight, you and the Legislature have done nothing more than meddle for the sake of furthering an agenda. An agenda of power and greed, just like the UTSFW model tell you to do. The only over-sight thats needed to prioritize anything, should be at the hands of the Director and the G&F commission via taking into consideration the desires of the Sportsmen. I have 100% more faith in the G&F Director and Commission than I do the Legislature.

You arent serious that the Legislature and TRW committee should provide over-sight are you? I mean, really Bob, how many of the TRW house and senate committees really understand wildlife management? What level of expertise do they bring to the table on how the WYG&F should prioritize what they manage...or how they manage it?

Most certainly you arent serious about WYSFW being the group, that has its chapters folding like cheap lawn chairs, asking for accountability? Really Bob, I saw the letter that the Cody Chapter sent you, repeatedly asking for accountability of where THEIR funds were going...you denied them that information. Yet, you expect 100% accountability from an Agency that already has a system of checks and balances in place???

I find it hard to beleive that you would criticize an agency that brings 1.1 billion to the States economy with a scant budget of 70-73 million. Name me one other state Agency that returns 12-13 times its investment into Wyoming...I'll save you the trouble...NONE of them do.

From the way Wyoming NR and R licenses fly off the shelf, I'd have to conclude that the WYG&F, along with the commission are largely getting it right.

What they dont need is headaches like you group, and a handful of misinformed/uninformed legislators, provide.

You've not one time offered up a viable solution to anything that doesnt push your Ranching for Wildlife, Privatize the publics resources, give away our wildlife to the wealthy agenda...FACT.
 
Amen, BuzzH, Amen!!! It's nice that someone can tell it like it really is and what the real SFW agenda is. I just can't believe that there are any folks left in that Wyoming organization and if people would really look and read between the lines the whole group would probably fold and Bob could go back to the Deseret in Utah where he should have stayed!!! PS: Bob loses all credibility when he calls me names and that's when all I do is call him on his BS, but I've never called him names! Great guy to have at the helm of WYSFW---NOT!!! Also, just maybe that 10,000 number was a newspaper typo that Bob took and ran with because it's very easy to see that 10,000 isn't even in the ballpark and he damn well knows it!!!
 
Residents get your wallets out and pay a little more. Us NRs are willing to pay our fair share and will likely stomach small increases, but let's realize WY's economy gets a nice return on the money you invest in wildlife, which benefits you, your friends, and your families. I love hunting there and have been treated well by the WYG&F people I've run into over the years. I think if you go too far with the NR fees, they'll eventually just say NO like they have in MT. They can't sell all the tags we used to have hope we got every other year. I used to hunt MT every year I could draw but now I only buy a leftover if I haven't drawn anything somewhere else and if I have an extra week off which doesn't happen all the time. Lots of my friends and family do the same thing now. I LOVE going to MT, but man it just has gotten too expensive to justify every year. WY needs to be aware that there will be a breaking point with NR fees.

Everyone's deer are struggling right now and without money to support efforts to bring them back it's only going to get worse.

Buzz - you're a rockstar and will enjoy a cold one on me if we ever meet in person.
 
BuzzH,

I guess you can choose what ever information you want to choose.

You are correct, mule deer numbers are down everywhere, so that means Wyoming shouldn't be doing anything different and they can expect their deer herds to rebound? You are much smarter than that, but of course, you already knew that too.

How about making mule deer recovery their priority? It seems that when we had health mule deer herds funding was not an issue.

BuzzH, it is amazing to me that your tinfoil hat allows you to know so much about things when you weren't anywhere around. It was our idea to ask for general funds to cover G&F health care costs. We were told that it would only produce $400-500K. Now we learn that it is more like $4.5 million. We were told not to bring it up. Cuts would not have been necessary had they obtained general funds this year, but what do I know? Oh, wait a minute, I forgot you have your tin foil hat on, you can tell me my thoughts and intentions.

Lucky for me you are there for me.

How much money are they pissing away on things that they shouldn't be? How would anybody know where the waste is occuring? I guess we should just trust them with the $70+ million dollars and wait patiently for our mule deer herds to recover. What is another 30-40 years?

BuzzH, the legislature does have oversight of the G&F Department. Do you need to understand wildlife management in order to assess whether money is being used efficiently? Why is it that the G&F Department has not released to the legislators a list of their priorities? Could it be that they have none? Perhaps, someone needs to prode them into defining their priorities. You are probably one of those guys that think our educational programs just need more money too and everything will work out. Throwing money at the G&F Department will not fix their budget woes.

You mention the Cody chapter as though you know what is going on with it. You got a letter from someone and I see that you thought you should share it with everyone else. How can WY SFW be accountable for the money they raised when they are not providing the accounting to WY SFW? This letter was the result of our Board of Directors changing our Policy & Procedures to increase accountability. You speak of things you know nothing about and your tin foil hat protects you. Better keep it on and strap it down.

I can rest easily now that you have arrived to save the day. How has Wyoming lasted so long without the benefit of your infinite wisdom?
 
"I also find it ironic Jeff that you accuse me of something that never happened. I was in the room when the outfitters made their pitch but WY SFW never indicated any support of their request. You and TOPlapdogUN can question my intergrity and motives all you want but I have been truthful every time. You can try and twist my words, it doesn't matter to me. I doubt that WY SFW will ever support set aside landowner licenses; however, a voucher system might be in the works."

Bob, it was a person also in that room that relayed this information to me and I specificly challenged their statement and was assured it was correct. You can go ahead and deny any involvement in this idea, but it's your words "I doubt that WY SFW will ever support set-aside landowner licenses" and not WY SFW WILL NEVER SUPPORT SET-ASIDES that tells me your thinking about it.

And talk about ironic, you have the nerve to seek accountability, when you as Executive Director of WY SFW offer none of your own. Once again for the hundreth time, how many members do you have in Wyoming? What did you do with the funds from the Cody Chapter? Why do you claim it was their problem when it was their request of you to tell them how the money they raised was spent?

When will WY SFW finally understand the sportsman of Wyoming do not want or need SFW representation. Sorry Bob, but your fired!
 
I think the idea of funding coming from the general fund to support wildlife is excellent as wildlife is a huge source of income for the state and hunters have been supporting non game species for far too long. I am willing to pay more for a resident license but i also think NR tags, mule deer specifically should be cut to 10% that is the norm for most western states. I have seen what SFW has done in Utah and it is definately not what we want in Wyoming. Thanks Buzz for the heads up.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-13 AT 04:11PM (MST)[p]Bob, you said:

"How about making mule deer recovery their priority? It seems that when we had health mule deer herds funding was not an issue."

To put the horse in front of the cart, something SFW seems to have trouble with, how do you expect the G&F to improve, enhance, or manage anything when you and your buddy Jaggi strip their budget? Its kind of tough to manage deer, when the WYG&F is spending more time figuring out how they're going to meet payroll, keep the programs already in place, and make up shortfalls throughout the agency. You're the classic whiner...you want more with less...and place unrealistic demands on the budget and the WYG&F. You want everything, but you want it for free, and expect the Agencies to work for a nickel an hour.

Of course in 1970 funding wasnt an issue, there wasnt half the demands placed on the Agencies that there are today. Nobody heard of things like NEPA, ESA, sensitive species, and the sky is the gdamn limit from there. For the record, the WYG&F is 100% committed, by law in most cases, to manage ALL wildlife. Its not up to you, me, or the agency to pick and choose what wildlife they're responsible for. Further, thats the way it should be. Sportsmen are supposed to be stewards of all wildlife, not just the wildlife that they can run a bullet or hook through...get it?

It was our idea to ask for general funds to cover G&F health care costs. We were told that it would only produce $400-500K. Now we learn that it is more like $4.5 million. We were told not to bring it up. Cuts would not have been necessary had they obtained general funds this year, but what do I know? Oh, wait a minute, I forgot you have your tin foil hat on, you can tell me my thoughts and intentions

Thats pretty funny Bob, I missed you at the meeting that the dozen other Sportsmens Groups in Wyoming had with the Governor last week? You know, the one where we asked the Governor to support the General Fund bill as well as the Fee increase bill (which he agreed to do)...oh, thats right, you werent there. Strange???

"How much money are they pissing away on things that they shouldn't be? How would anybody know where the waste is occuring? I guess we should just trust them with the $70+ million dollars and wait patiently for our mule deer herds to recover. What is another 30-40 years?"

Who says they're pissing away money??? You? Seems to me that they're spending the money pretty wisely considering the amount of work they're required to do. Considering they manage non-game, fisheries, fund access, habitat, research, manange big-game, sensitive species, provide NEPA requirements, manage fur-bearers, grizzly bears, wolves, law enforcement, GIS data, etc. etc. etc. In particular when those expidentures of 70-73 million return 1.1 billion to Wyomings economy. I'd take that kind of return on any of my investments...and greedily. How they do what they do with only 70-73 million is nothing short of amazing...FACT.



"BuzzH, the legislature does have oversight of the G&F Department. Do you need to understand wildlife management in order to assess whether money is being used efficiently?"

The legislature should largely stay out of the portion of the G&F budget that Sportsmens dollars fund...you know the 62 million of a 70 million dollar budget. If they want to provide over-sight on general funds...have at it...but stay away from the part you havent funded.

"Why is it that the G&F Department has not released to the legislators a list of their priorities? Could it be that they have none?"

Already told you, they're priority is to manage ALL wildlife in the State. Further, its not the legislatures business...they're mostly non-hunters and dont understand what the G&F is asked to manage. How can a group of non-hunting legislators even ask, with a straight face, for anything from the G&F? They provide jack-nothing for funding, and, with a single hour of research and 2 firing brain cells, they could easily find out just how extensive the G&F duties really are.

Perhaps, someone needs to prode them into defining their priorities. Throwing money at the G&F Department will not fix their budget woes.

Thats funny...you expect "aggressive management" but expect it to be done for free? Really? You strip their budget, then start making more demands??? Holy Chit! Thats impressive and obtuse, even by your standards. WOW!

You got a letter from someone and I see that you thought you should share it with everyone else.

Hey its all about integrity and being open and honest...isnt that right? The truth will set the duped SFW membership free...if only obviously.

How can WY SFW be accountable for the money they raised when they are not providing the accounting to WY SFW? This letter was the result of our Board of Directors changing our Policy & Procedures to increase accountability.

Thats not what the letter is stating...seems you've been asked for accounting and cant provide it. I'll pretend I'm shocked by that...
 
What, no more smartazz comments from Bob after the letter and truth comes out to what is really happening with his group? He probably left the building with his tail tucked between his legs, LOL! When will he learn to stay off this site and quit jerking everyone off!
 
I stand behind G&F's efforts and will gladly support a fee increase. Kudos to the sportsmen that approached the Governor, and to Governor Mead for supporting their efforts.

I most certainly will support a publicly accountable state conservation agency over the shenanigans of a corrupt, supposedly 'non' profit organization aiming only at its own empowerment. While I suspect that many of SFW's members have good intentions, the public interest cannot be expected to be served by an organization born of a crook like Don Peay.

Bob, I'm still waiting to hear why your Basin Chapter Board resigned, and how you respond to their allegations that lining your pocket was more important than sustaining the conservation efforts of the local chapter. Their actions speak louder than your words.
 
I will support a increase on antelope, elk, sheep, moose, and goats. A resident sheep tag should increase by 150-200%.
I will not support a increase for mule deer. The g&f has not changed management practices for mule deer for
Decades. We still hunt deer like we did in the 1970's. 70 day deer seasons, over crowded hunts (at least in the western portions of the state) and the reluctance to quit using mule deer as a catalyst to fund all things game and fish. If deer tags were free there would be no incentive to continue the mismanagement of mule deer in Wyoming.
I support a increase on other species because I believe we have quality opportunities. I will not support any increase in youth licenses.
I also would add that giving more money to the government rarely fixes any problems and until the g&f starts thinking out of the box we could raise fees by 500% and we wouldn't fix the budget crunch.
 
Wyoming better not follow in Idaho's footsteps or they will lose not only me and my family, but many others as well.

Why is it so difficult for the Residents to pay a little extra than to dump it all on NR hunters who make up a majority of the money coming in?

I dont go to Idaho for this very reason. It is a load of BS to pay over 100 bucks for a license that is a waist if I dont draw a tag, because I am sure as hell not driving to Idaho to hunt a POS OTC tag that will cost over 300 bucks.

Residents.. you dont know how good you have it in Wyoming till you are no longer a resident and have to pay NR fee's and deal with the drawing odds!!
 
I'm not sure what the answer is gentlemen, but try to avoid what is going on in NM. Our G&F decided it was wise to increase some of our unit tag allotments to the order of a few thousand tags to increase revenue. Most will say that those same units barely hold any deer at all.....brilliant. I agree with mule deer poplations decreasing. Sad to see and sad to see the agencies charged with fixing the problem get budgets cut when they barely function as it is. Maybe an incentive program for landowners to improve habitat? I imagine that would help over time and eventually deer would expand their range to include public lands. I'm not a landowner by the the way. Just my 2 cents.
 
If they raise their tag fee's for NR we won't be going and our family has been hunting there for 20 years.
 
I'd plan on not going then...because its going to happen. Hard to believe a 10% increase over 6 years is breaking your hunt???

I'd shovel sidewalks to make up the 10% before I stayed home, and thats a fact.

I guess prices should never change...WOW!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-26-13 AT 08:34AM (MST)[p]I think what bothers some people is Wyoming really increased nonresident fees over the last several decades yet hardly touched resident fees during the same time frame.

And here it is again, sounds like a 50%-50% split is fair enough? except its on top of all the other nonresident raises that occurred, and than there is the fact that a ten percent increase on $1000.00 is a lot bigger amount than ten percent of $50.00.
 
>I'd plan on not going then...because
>its going to happen. Hard
>to believe a 10% increase
>over 6 years is breaking
>your hunt???
>
>I'd shovel sidewalks to make up
>the 10% before I stayed
>home, and thats a fact.
>
>
>I guess prices should never change...WOW!
>


***Ain't that the truth! In fact, to make it easier on our retirement income so that I can do the hunts I do, I take care of two places doing all the grass, bushes, snow removal, etc. in order to have enough money for my yearly trip without dipping into my 401K and all my wife has to do is save some each month for part of my gas monay. That is what is really the killer when you live 1500 miles from Wyoming, not the price of the tags!!!
 
I agree that nr prices will rise but I will be pissed if the residents stay the same again. They have already stuck us with the preference point bs and now several of us are stuck paying money just for points. I would agree with buzz if it were just me I was buying a tag for.... But in the not too long future I will be buying tags and points for myself, wife, and 2 kids. No a $100 increase on a tag is not too much for me but spread that out over 3 tag a year and it adds up fast.

I hop e the super tag will help, I also think that the residents need to start adding into the pot. I know I will not be buying a deer tag in WY anytime soon as things look real bad, so they will be making money off my points at least...

Simply put I know more revenue is needed but there is a point when the same old process is not going to work. I not aware of many people who have seen a 10 percent pay increase over the last few years.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-26-13 AT 05:13PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-26-13 AT 05:11?PM (MST)

I am a resident of WY and have no problem with a license fee increase, and neither do most resident hunters I know.

If a non-resident has a problem with license fee increases, they can choose another state for their hunt. Truth is, outfitters speak for non-residents here in Wyoming because they have a big presence in Cheyenne during the legislative session. Outfitters have no problem with fee increases for the NR because their clients are willing pay higher fees. In fact, the outfitters would love to price DIY NR hunters out to guarantee clients for themselves. The outfitters lobbied for NR pref points, for special pricing and the exclusion of NR DIY hunters in the wilderness. When I say outfitters, I am speaking generally, as I'm sure there are a few who don't fit this mold.(darn few)

And outfitters in Wyoming accomplish all this without contributing a dime to the WY G&F for wildlife management. I hope the Sportman Coalition addresses this as they seek alternative funding methods. Buzz?

One topic that is coming up more and more, as alternative funding methods are sought, is the percentage of licenses going to the NR. In the future, there will be many more resident hunters fighting to change this and it will be done through the legislative process, as the Wy G&F won't put themselves between resident hunters and outfitters(who will fight it)

Sorry to say this as I have many NR friends who come here and hunt, but as long as licenses are over-subscribed in Wyoming and leftovers sold out, the NR hunter can complain all they want about license fees and those complaints will fall on deaf ears. Generally speaking...
 
I am sure that the end-run solution proposed by WY SFW will be a Utah style system to help gap the money shortfalls. Outfitter set aside, land owner vouchers etc. are simply the first push towards the Utah system. Bob will say WY SFW has not asked for that. What I see is WY SFW desperately trying to kill the Wyoming G&F funding. I see this a a way to create a budget emergency wherein a Utah style system will emerge as the answer.

Given the WY SFW chapter dropping SFW because of accountability...it sure paints a different picture of last years SFW's Buffalo tag. Bob, a very simple question. How much of the proceeds from that tag went directly to you? Do you see it as a conflict of interest to lobby for a tag if the majority of the money goes to your pocket? I am not saying that is what happened. I simply don't know because you have not said what WY SFW did with he money.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-27-13 AT 07:59AM (MST)[p]jm77---The problem with your "let them go somewhere else" philosophy is that it's very simple to say, but if a large % of us were to do that the G&F would really have budget problems with the huge % they take in from us. There is no way the residents will want to pay fees that it would take to keep the G&F afloat if that were to happen. The resident fees definitely need to be raised quite a bit, as they are ridiculously low, even if you don't compare them to what the NR is paying.

I'm sure the outfitters are a big reason for things you mentioned and probably the only reason for the NR wilderness law that is a real crock. A guy can live there all his life and hunt the wilderness until he knows it like the back of his hand. Let him move to another state for more than 6 months a year where he can no longer declare WY as his residence and he can no longer hunt there without at least going with a resident with a temp. license---what a crock!!!

You are more than correct in your assessments though. The prices will continue to rise to the point where many NRs will no longer be able to go if they are not of sufficient funds. I'm glad I'm not in that boat because hunting is my passion and I'd probably start giving up or selling small body parts to continue going to WY, LOL!

One last thing that I think needs to be addressed is the call for an across the board percentage increase in fees. That would be great if the resident and NR percentages were different, but to say they are going up the same 10% or whatver is worked out isn't right IMHO when it means a huge increase for an NR as compared to your fees. The NRs can scream all they want though and say they won't continue hunting, but will they quit hunting the west completely when all the other states charge comparable fees? The NR that wants to hunt out west is sort of between a rock and a hard place. Then again, every one of us is an NR except in one state, LOL!

Happy Holidays dude!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-26-13 AT 06:03PM (MST)[p]>I am sure that the end-run
>solution proposed by WY SFW
>will be a Utah style
>system to help gap the
>money shortfalls. Outfitter set
>aside, land owner vouchers etc.
> are simply the first
>push towards the Utah system.
> Bob will say WY
>SFW has not asked for
>that. What I see
>is WY SFW desperately trying
>to kill the Wyoming G&F
>funding. I see this
>a a way to create
>a budget emergency wherein a
>Utah style system will emerge
>as the answer.
>
>Given the WY SFW chapter dropping
>SFW because of accountability...it sure
>paints a different picture of
>last years SFW's Buffalo tag.
> Bob, a very
>simple question. How much
>of the proceeds from that
>tag went directly to you?
> Do you see it
>as a conflict of interest
>to lobby for a tag
>if the majority of the
>money goes to your pocket?
> I am not saying
>that is what happened.
>I simply don't know because
>you have not said what
>WY SFW did with he
>money.


I see you were posting this as I was replying to jm77 and need to comment on it. I'm glad you made that statement about WYSFW because those have been my exact thoughts for some time now. If they can keep pressing like Bob is doing and continue to defund the G&F, it will leave the Utah model of corruption, for lack of a better description, to be proposed and passed in WY. God help us if that happens. Do you really think you'll get an answer from Bob when he won't even say what their membership total is, LOL?! You probably noticed that in the Basin letter they state that almost 100% of their 70% going into the WYSFW coffers was to pay Bob his salary and expenses. That is absolutely unreal and an abomination and I wonder if all the other chapters know that why they haven't all dropped out!
 
I think JM pretty much summed it up. Most of my hunting friends support higher resident fee's, but we all want a larger percentage of tags and would pay more for a bigger cut. It'd be nice to see an amendment thrown on one of those bills to increase resident tag quotas. Might have a hard time getting it through in a budget only session, but maybe not in 2015 if the G&F continues to cut programs. There's an idea if anyone wants to write their legislative reps. I apply in 5 - 6 states depending on the year and it seems like most states charge about the same if not more than what Wyoming charges non residents. Having a hard time understanding all the belly aching. If its so bad, go apply in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada or where ever. And so what if one state is a $100 or whatever more or less than next state. If you have to beeatch and moan and threaten to quit hunting a particular state, then you probably can't afford it anyway. Given how much supply exceeds demand, you probably won't be missed anyway...

JM, did you whack that bigg'un in 38 this year.
 
>JM, did you whack that bigg'un
>in 38 this year.


It was quite a hunt for sure. Weeks of scouting, chasing a giant the first two days of bow and then blowing my chance. Thirteen more days of archery hunting, mouth calling a 160 bull to 6 ft with nothing but a front-on shot. Then after 10 days of rifle hunting and the day after my buddies went home, a 161 bull walked out and I finally ended it. The highs and lows, the time spent in the mtns, the new friends made and all the different people I met, made it a season never to forget.

But was I sure glad when it was over...
 
So what are we complaining about? I will have at least 10 elk points before I draw the actual tag then pay the tag rice and what ever add ins there might be. If you do not think the nonresidents will go elsewhere look at what happened in MT. They had to advertise in the bugle and several other magazines because the price increases meant not selling as many tags. There is a limit and when that limit is hit you will see an exit of hunters. No matter how you look at it. Prices go up people will simply be buying less tags at some point.

The 10% increase across the board is crap. A $4 to $6 increase for residents versus 60+ for non residents....

The bigger issue I have is the idea that we are just kicking a can down the road a little further. Another couple years we will be back in the same boat in the same situation. There has to be a better model, and better options.
 
Some good points being made on this thread, and some that I have to shake my head at.

jm77, I agree with you that outfitters and the restaurant hotel businesses need to be kicking in some money to help fund the WYG&F. I know that we do have the Hotel/Restaurant folks on board with fully funding the G&F, as well as the O/G folks...just not real sure if they're ready to put their money where their mouths are.

The outfitters, I really have my doubts. That particular group, for the most part, has historically been about lining their pockets. They whine, lobby, complain, and cry about everything that is related to G&F funding, management, tag allocations, the sky is the limit. Largely, they've gotten their way through organized lobbying, and they've largely contributed about as close to ZERO into funding as a group can get. They typically have no problems making profits from wildlife though.

I think the tables are turning, and many are sick and tired, of being sick and tired, with the way they've steam-rolled the R and NR hunters with their agenda. If I were an outfitter, I'd start thinking of ways to contribute and "put something back"...or risk losing what you have now.

A recent example is the Outfitter Sponsored Licenses in Montana, and if not for the down-turn in the economy leaving plenty of NR licenses on the table, they'd be singing the blues.

elks96, I cant feel bad about your situation. When I was growing up, my family never had the money to hunt out of state. In fact, my father never hunted out of state until I moved to Wyoming 14 years ago. I started hunting in 1979, and didnt make a single out of state application or hunt out of state until 1995.I find it troubling that you think Wyoming or any other state, should keep fees low enough so you can afford to pay for your tags, your wifes tags, AND your kids tags. I have a suggestion, maybe make your kids hit a lick and pay for their own. Maybe apply your kids only, instead of being selfish. Or maybe make your kids wait until they get jobs and enjoy YOURSELF. Whatever, but dont expect Wyoming to subsidize your family hunting trips.

However, I DO think you have a valid and real complaint on the straight percentage increase on NR's and R's. I agree 100% with you that a straight percentage increase is crap and unfair. I'd rather see a very small percentage increase on NR's (something in the range of 2-5%), and a 15-20% increase in Resident fees.

I also agree with you 100% on finding and figuring out long-term funding solutions that would only make raising fees necessary every 5-7 years (or more). However, that doesnt mean that license fees should never increase, they should rise at least with the rate of inflation.

While I will likely take some heat and flack for it...I am going to ask the Wyoming Coalition to do what I proposed on the fee increase bill (raise R more and NR less). I fully appreciate that you, and many other NR's fund a large portion of the WYG&F budget. I owe it to NR's to look out for them because of that, and I also expect the Residents to step up more than they have in the past.

There is also no doubt what the WYSFW agenda is, and many are spot on. They want to take control of WY's wildlife, licenses, and funding. They want Ranching for Wildlife, outfitter sponsored licenses, and transferable landowner vouchers/tags. Its the model they either use, or attempt to use, in every state they have a chapter in. Wyoming is no exception.

I think WYSFW is losing its influence in a big way...
 
I know of no one that has not had a raise in pay for 6 consecutive years.It just costs more to do the same thing as it did years ago. I would think a 10 % increase in tag fees would not be out of line.
I do think outfitters should pay there fair share also.If tags go up 10% the outfitters should pay 10% of there fee to G&F.There prices are out of hand in some cases anyway.Who else can make a years wage in two months of work.
 
Buzz, I would gladly pay 10 or 15 % more, but like I've said before I want to see NR tags cut to 10%. Wyoming gives out more NR tags than any western state.

Wyomings population has grown, and is still on the rise, a lot since the GnF implemented NR/R quota. It only makes sense to cut NR tags.
 
I have to dis agree. You would have to pay a whole lot more than 10 to 15% to off set the amount of money you loose by cutting nr to 10% would be huge. I do not agree that WY give more NR tags than any other state. You are full of it on that comment. Remember CO allows every single NR every year to buy a tag no questions no problem. If you cut you NR tags to only 10% it will hurt way more than what you are stuck loosing.

Buzz,
At what point does a fee increase balance out on NR? That is the bigger question. My point about my family etc. Is more about at what point does increased fees result in a wash for increased money? With lower fees I could justify and afford the left over cow tag on top of the regular price tag etc. but when things get too high the number of tags I buy will start to decrease in one form or another...

In all honesty the reduced price tags could and should increase... I also tend to hate the idea that because your dad could not afford for you to hunt out of state it automatically means there is no sympathy for my situation. My family will be hunting some how someway each year. If WY gets to high we will be looking for best value for money... If that is a whitetail hunt in MT or taxes exotics, or pigs in FL. The truth of the matter is that except for speed goats and the ability to hunt archery before rifle WY does not offer any great value. If the deer bounce back then maybe deer will be a value... Sadly we can not predict what the numbers will do... More hunters, less. Hunters, better economy etc... Go too far and the MT becomes a better value and you will see wy advertising g to try and sell quotes...


>Buzz, I would gladly pay 10
>or 15 % more, but
>like I've said before I
>want to see NR tags
>cut to 10%. Wyoming
>gives out more NR tags
>than any western state.
>
>Wyomings population has grown, and is
>still on the rise, a
>lot since the GnF implemented
>NR/R quota.
> It only makes sense
>to cut NR tags.
 
There's going to be a push back on raising NR tags. Im sure the WYGF has already took this into account and the possible loss of NR applying.
 
elks96---The last I heard I believe the WY NR fees represented about 80% of the licenses and fee money coming into the G&F coffers, so you are correct that if they lost a significant number of NRs, the resident fees would have to go way up to offset that loss. How much would obviously depend on how much money in NR fees was lost. However, you're a little bit off on your comparison with CO on license sales. In CO they do have an OTC elk tag good in certain seasons, but not all. Almost everything else is by draw of some sort or another and the better units are taking 15-20 years even for a resident to draw a tag. Yes, the OTC tags for certain seasons is great if you just want to go somewhere to elk hunt and count orange hats/coats all day, LOL!
 
Like I said earlier, all you have to do is look at Montana and see that you can't push the NR tag fees up continually or you risk not selling all your tags. Montana had to spend money advertising tags that used to sell out.
I'm no mathematician but the state generates a whole lot more cash from selling a NR tag than it does a resident tag so they really don't want to cut those very much. I guess if you wanted to cut the NR tags and give them to the residents you would have to raise them so much that the residents would scream so loud that it would never happen.

With that, I'm sure NRs will pay a little more and ask the residents to step up and pay to play too. 10% of $1057 NR elk tag is a whole lot more $ than 10% of $52 resident elk tag.

Most of the western states could probably stand to raise their resident tag fees a little to be a little more realistic. $20 for a resident cow tag? Really realistic in 2013-14? One of the magazines do an analysis on the disparity in fees awhile back. It was pretty interesting and pointed out how the model of just passing the cost to the NRs really isn't going to work forever.

IMO getting some of the other residents who benefit from wildlife to pony up via the general fund is a solid idea.

Good discussion so far. Enjoying the debate and hope we can make some progress with the state. I love hunting WY and want my kids to be able to experience it too.
 
elks96-show me which state allows NR to have 25% of sheep tags and 20% of moose tags, not to mention mtn goats and bison. Forget OTC tags in Colo, no state that I know of gives 16% of limited quota elk and 20% of limited deer tags to NRs. The fact is residents in Wyoming are talking more about this all the time. If the time comes to change it, funding will be addressed without a doubt!

DunkyPunch- I paid $43 for my additional cow elk tag. What are you talking about?

Buzz will not be successful if he proposes a higher increase % wise for residents. It just won't happen. In fact it would most likely kill the bill. That won't help the fix we are in. After the 10% failed last session, the last attempt was a NR only increase. Legislators answer to the voters in Wyoming, sorry all thats the way it works.
 
I think Wyoming is going to stick the nonresidents with the big increase, and I think it might hurt them in the long run, the marginal tags, the ones that barely sell out now is where its going to show up.

Actually I believe Colorado gives a high percentage of their draw tags to nonresidents, similar to WY, and they have a lot more residents besides, so don't toot your horn to loudly jm77

Most of things this state does are dumb when it comes to changes in wildlife management, the draconian draw system, no creative ways to increase opportunity without killing the resource, like separate muzzy and archery tags, split seasons ect.

Im guessing this funding strategy will be the next disaster, so lets slam it to nonresidents and make it sound fair, 10% all the way around, I mean whats an additional 4 bucks for my extra elk tag and 5 bucks for the regular?
 
jm77,

I agree with you, the bill would die if it was amended to increase the fees more on Residents than Non-Residents. It wont be amended either, I know that.

However, I personally dont give a chit if I ruffle some feathers and make it known to the Wyoming Sportsmens Association/Coalition that they better start taking a hard look at how they're socking it to NR's...over and over and over again. In particular when Residents arent doing their share of the heavy lifting budget wise. It pizzes me off when all I hear from Residents is, "Well, raise the NR's fees, but leave mine alone!". Oh, and lets cut the percentage of NR tags too. The lack of thought given to pricing NR tags higher and higher, while cutting their tag numbers, and expecting Resident fees to never increase...that flat doesnt add up.

I dont join ranks with anyone to be a "yes" guy and I sure dont go along just to get along. Not the way I do business, and after the last session you probably realize that. If this sportsmens coalition expected anything less, they shouldnt have asked me to be part of it.

I also dont do things just to be different or to be a PITA. However, the thought process and the way we fund the WYG&F has got to change to something other than business as usual.

I'm interested more in the long-term solutions which are going to have to be non-traditional funding sources. Solve that, and these types of license fee increase discussions go away.
 
Piper- "toot your horn" ? nice... if you bothered to check Colorado allocates no more than 10% moose sheep and mtn goat to NR. Far cry from Wyo. Deer and elk are 35% or 20% in areas requiring 6 or more pref points. And the NR is not allowed to participate in Ranching for Wildlife tags. OK?

Buzz- I'm sure you have read my words that I am not against the fee increase. I realize the importance of funding the G&F as much as you do. I also agree that if the Wy Coalition doesn't know your style, it's just a matter of time.(I already warned Porter) I do happen to believe you catch more flies with honey than with Buzz chit! That being said, we hunters are our own biggest enemy. When we don't agree with each other, the civil discussion lasts only so long.(on this forum it might be civil for one post) Everyone here is entitled to their opinion and mine is more often the same as yours, but not always as you know! That's the way it is and I am sure the G&F will be getting more funding after this session. It may not make some people very happy though.
 
I think one thing that Wyoming needs to watch out for is increasing NR costs while lowering the percentage of tags at the same time.

In regards to tag allocation, I think that the NR allocation is one of the things that makes Wyoming the most attractive states for NR.
 
whitwell_56,

We're all residents of one state and NR's in 49 others...it would make sense for Resident Sportsmen to keep that in mind.

Its not easy to put yourself in others shoes, perhaps even harder to walk a mile in them. In particular when you get the type of deal that Wyoming Residents enjoy in regard to price, diversity, and opportunity we enjoy when it comes to Game and Fish. Most arent afforded that luxury.

I think most lose sight of the big picture...mainly that Residents have been cutting a fat hog in the a$$ for wayyy too long.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-27-13 AT 08:40PM (MST)[p]Let's put it right out in plain English BuzzH. The residents for the most part, at least a bunch that post on this Forum, appear to be a bunch of cheap bassturds! All we hear is sock it to the NRs and if they don't like it let them go somewhere else. It would serve them right if there was a major boycott for one year by NRs to show them how important NRs are to keeping their G&F running! For cripes sakes, we're paying roughly 80% of the money now that the G&F takes in for licenses and other fees in any given year! Now a bunch of residents want NRs to pay the same percentage if the fees increase and the NR tag percentages to be lowered. What a crock with no thought as to what will happen with the money lost for other than people locked in with PPs because a lot will get out of Dodge and residents will either have to fork over much higher fees themselves, come up with alternative funding, or quit hunting themselves. My suggestion is for all of you guys to get on the BuzzH sled and get some type of alternative funding through like BuzzH has mentioned that will shore up the funding deficits. To do other than that is going to be the final nail in the coffin in the near future and you'll either be paying much higher fees yourselves or you won't be able to afford to hunt at all.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-28-13 AT 05:14AM (MST)[p]I couldn't agree more, Wyoming GnF needs additional funding. I also agree that resident fees must go up. Whatever they set the tag amount for I will pay, I love to hunt.

Like I said before, I DON'T want to stick it to NR, my father and good friend are NR. New Mexico made a big quota change a few years ago and there are plenty of people applying.

How many of you hunted Montana before the license increase? I really don't think you can compare hunting Montana to Wyoming.
 
I'm not jumping on anyones sled nothing personal BuzzH. Something going to give in Wyoming and it look like its against the NR.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-28-13 AT 04:39PM (MST)[p]>I'm not jumping on anyones sled
>nothing personal BuzzH. Something going
>to give in Wyoming and
>it look like its against
>the NR.


***Seems as that's a very typical response, but strange that it came from an AZ NR this time! We know many residents just want the NRs to shoulder the burden and keep riding our coat tails!!! You may be surprised this time because the NRs aren't going to be able to pick up all the slack any more and it will either also require a decent fee increase for the residents, some method of alternative funding, or a combination of the three. IMHO riding the coattails of NRs to bail WY out is coming to an end pretty soon. Maybe not this time, but sooner than later.
 
The problem is that the legislature is composed of cowards, like all politicians they only care about getting elected and pacifying their constituents.
Until they realize they killed the golden goose it will be the same as always, hammer the nonresidents, Idaho did the same thing some years ago.

It will show up on the low demand tags first, and if they cut desirable nonresident tag numbers the loss in revenue will be noticeable pretty quickly

For the record Im a resident and would not mind seeing a healthy increase in resident tag prices, 80 bucks for elk, 60 for antelope and deer wouldn't be out of line in my opinion, it costs over 80 dollars just to fill the tank on my pick up.
 
Hey Piper! For once I agree with every friggin word you posted and I think your proposed are in line with what is probably needed along with a fair increase for NRs and I'm not talking 10% when our fees are already so high! Happy Holidays to you and yours!!!
 
Hey thanks TOPGUN for reminding me to update my profile. Before I left AZ I bought a Lifetime hunting license. Like my brother said enough is enough!
 
>Hey thanks TOPGUN for reminding me
>to update my profile. Before
>I left AZ I bought
>a Lifetime hunting license. Like
>my brother said enough is
>enough!


***Dang, now you went and done it, LOL! Where are you in Utah?
 
>St George area.


***Geez, you barely moved out of AZ, LOL! One of the prettiest places I've ever been to was Zion Canyon back in September of 1968 on a 3 week vacation with my wife through a number of the western states.If you haven;t been there yet, you have to go up in there, as it is gorgeous country.
 
>The problem is that the legislature
>is composed of cowards, like
>all politicians they only care
>about getting elected and pacifying
>their constituents.
> Until they realize they
>killed the golden goose it
>will be the same as
>always, hammer the nonresidents,
>Idaho did the same thing
>some years ago.
>
>It will show up on the
>low demand tags first, and
>if they cut desirable nonresident
>tag numbers the loss in
>revenue will be noticeable pretty
>quickly
>
>For the record Im a resident
>and would not mind seeing
>a healthy increase in resident
>tag prices, 80 bucks
>for elk, 60 for antelope
>and deer wouldn't be out
>of line in my opinion,
> it costs over 80
>dollars just to fill the
>tank on my pick up.
>

Agreed. Resident tags could cost more than a tank of gas and residents would survive.
 

Similar threads

BrianID
Thoughts on new Special license fees
2
Replies
107
Views
4k
BuzzH
BuzzH
joestrow
SOLD Sig 10k Binoculars w/Outdoorsman stud
Replies
1
Views
279
joestrow
joestrow
Bluehair
A special wolf job opportunity
Replies
10
Views
583
SS!
SS!

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_3315.JPG
A2E832B3-DC50-4390-9CE8-88CBAB08BA7E.jpeg
20211123_180003.jpg
IMG_0316.jpeg
20221022_083021.jpg
C1EAC0CD-C2B7-428C-B984-2CEB331F2513.jpeg
Screenshot_20200506-133635_Photos.jpg
IMG_5393.jpg
DSCN1221 (2) copy.jpg
IMG_8377.JPG
009B8B1D-F16A-4F00-B04F-DBCB56A77745.jpeg
DSCF0374.JPG

Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Badger Creek Outfitters

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

Urge 2 Hunt

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

J & J Outfitters

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


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses
Back
Top Bottom