WY license revenue

Status
Not open for further replies.

Horniac

Active Member
Messages
947
No wonder that the various license application systems recommend not buying the preference point if you currently have less than 18 points.
...and yet 1,500+ NR buy their very FIRST point every year! Not to mention the other 9,500+ with less than 18 that continue to purchase them.
Perhaps Wyoming Game and Fish has made the PP optional because they realize that for most people the PP has no value.
...you would hope that is the case but I can’t see them doing this because if the 9,592 NR with less than 18 points entering this year’s sheep draw took the advice from the application services WYG&F would lose over $1.4M in preference point revenue. Though a good portion of NR are just buying points and banking them for the future and not actually applying for the tag.

Horniac
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
398
Horniac,
Currently there are approximately 2,100 NR with 15 preference points or more for bighorn sheep in Wyoming. At the current rate of approximately 50 NR tags per year in the preference point draw, that equates to 42 years before those applicants are awarded tags. If the regulations are change to 90/10, then only approximately 20 NR tags per year or approximately 100 years for the 2,100 NR to draw tags (obviously all will be dead by then). No wonder that the various license application systems recommend not buying the preference point if you currently have less than 18 points. Perhaps Wyoming Game and Fish has made the PP optional because they realize that for most people the PP has no value.
I still believe that bighorn sheep, moose and mountain goat should be once in a lifetime for residents and non-residents.
Not everyone wins when they enter a lottery, that’s why it is called a lottery. Last I checked the winners who gamble in Las Vegas are actually quite low. The point is you can’t hunt if you don’t enter the drawing. This is how the system works. Nobody is guaranteed anything in life, life is not fair or equitable across the board. If you want to try and have a chance then go ahead and enter. If you think it’s futile then drop out. Nobody is forcing you to pay for the “Opportunity” at a chance to go hunting sheep or moose.

I also don’t understand how you could implement a once in a lifetime system. At one point we had 2000 moose tags in Wyoming. With 45,000 active hunters that meant every 22.5 years you would likely draw a moose tag. Those days are gone but hopefully we can get the wolf numbers and grizzly under control and get back to a 1000 annual permits, time will tell. What about the 16 year old boy who got lucky and drew a moose permit 30 years ago and now has 20+ preference points? Would he be now disqualified and taken out of the drawing pool having wasted all his time, effort and money? Should Alaska implement once in a lifetime for moose because you don’t like it as a Non-Res. that some resident hunters get to kill more than one moose in their lifetimes?
 

Sierra

Active Member
Messages
952
If they want to maximize revenue, WY should just sell each tag to highest bidder. Non-residents would likely buy up most of the good tags and WY would be sitting pretty with all of the additional hunting revenue. Tourism dollars would go through the roof and most importantly we wouldn’t have to listen to BuzzH anymore.
 

jims

Very Active Member
Messages
2,319
Back to the original topic, what about revenue? Wyo res can bleed their hearts out about how unfair the current tag allotments are for residents but haven’t given any explanation on where the catastrophic economic losses will come from?

I haven’t heard any mention in colo about limiting nonres? Colo is aware of the boost to the economy that nonres bring to the state and small town communities. Colo’s local economies are reaping the benefits!
Where are the millions of $$ losses going to come from when Wyo’s economy is in the dumps and covid isn’t helping?

I have a great idea! Start a Wyo resident pref pt system and charge res $35 to $150/license to apply. That ought to make up for a small chunk of the losses! Oh yah, now let’s figure out how to make up for the lost revenue from tag fee differences. How about charging Wyo res $100 for an antelope tag and $400 for an elk tag I’m sure that will make up for tag fee losses and go over well with res!

Now let’s figure out a strategy to make up for small town community revenue losses...oh boy...I can’t think of any can you?

As I’ve been saying all along, nonres are every
Wyoming resident’s friend....not foe! Both Wyo res and nonres have a darn good thing going!
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
398
Back to the original topic, what about revenue? Wyo res can bleed their hearts out about how unfair the current tag allotments are for residents but haven’t given any explanation on where the catastrophic economic losses will come from?

I haven’t heard any mention in colo about limiting nonres? Colo is aware of the boost to the economy that nonres bring to the state and small town communities. Colo’s local economies are reaping the benefits!
Where are the millions of $$ losses going to come from when Wyo’s economy is in the dumps and covid isn’t helping?

I have a great idea! Start a Wyo resident pref pt system and charge res $35 to $150/license to apply. That ought to make up for a small chunk of the losses! Oh yah, now let’s figure out how to make up for the lost revenue from tag fee differences. How about charging Wyo res $100 for an antelope tag and $400 for an elk tag I’m sure that will make up for tag fee losses and go over well with res!

Now let’s figure out a strategy to make up for small town community revenue losses...oh boy...I can’t think of any can you?

As I’ve been saying all along, nonres are every
Wyoming resident’s friend....not foe! Both Wyo res and nonres have a darn good thing going!
The Game and Fish is 100% self funded ie it receives no money from the legislature. Making up for a few million in lost license sales can be easily made up. Residents know licenses will increase as will non-resident license fees. An easy way to earn $5 Million is just sell 500 Commissioner tags for $10,000 each. I am sure the line will be a mile long and the outfitters chomping at the bit for those tags. Money is easy to come by when it comes to high quality Wyoming game. No loss of revenue will occur from small towns as we still want and need non-residents to come hunt antelope, doe and Cow elk and the bunch who come on fully guided hunts. We’re not worried about revenue in the slightest, it’s as easy as upping the ante a bit on all parties.
 

ss13

Active Member
Messages
265
The Game and Fish is 100% self funded ie it receives no money from the legislature. Making up for a few million in lost license sales can be easily made up. Residents know licenses will increase as will non-resident license fees. An easy way to earn $5 Million is just sell 500 Commissioner tags for $10,000 each. I am sure the line will be a mile long and the outfitters chomping at the bit for those tags. Money is easy to come by when it comes to high quality Wyoming game. No loss of revenue will occur from small towns as we still want and need non-residents to come hunt antelope, doe and Cow elk and the bunch who come on fully guided hunts. We’re not worried about revenue in the slightest, it’s as easy as upping the ante a bit on all parties.

So you'd propose to take 500 high quality tags out of the draw pool, so a bunch of non residents can buy them? Not following that logic. Basically you would want to redistribute and take tags from the average joe non resident and sell them to the trust fund non resident. The only winner in that would be the guides. The way Buzz pitches how the budget would work doesn't make sense either.

To be fully transparent I can see how reducing the big three to 90-10 would work budget wise. Other than preference point profits, the big three doesn't bring in much revenue money on tags alone.

Even then, residents would still see a substantial tag increase across the board to get an extra 10% of big three tags. Within your circle residents may be in favor, but id be willing to bet across the entire state it wouldn't get the support you're expecting. People would flip if all tags went up by $20 each to cover the cost of an extra X amount of sheep tags that they'll never draw anyways.
 

jims

Very Active Member
Messages
2,319
I don’t see the millions in revenue losses as a drop in the bucket! Especially with Wyo’s current financial status. The revenue loss has to be picked up somewhere? Who’s pocket is it going to come from? It’s crazy to think it doesn’t matter!

I’m sure Wyo res will be thrilled with offering more commissioners tags! That’s like robbing both res and nonres of tags.

I would think 90/10 would have passed years ago if budget and revenue wasn’t a big deal?
 
Last edited:

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
398
@ss13. ‘People would flip if all tags went up by $20 each”. No, most residents understand their licenses will increase and $20 is nothing. Hell, even my utilities increase more per year than that. It’s all figured into a cost of living increase that the Game and Fish requires more each year to fulfill its job. Making up. A few million bucks won’t be hard, the Commissioner tags was just an easy example, doubt it would have to happen but it just shows you how easy money can be acquired from different sources if need be. Wyoming residents giving out 16% of elk tags and 20% of deer and sheep tags and 25% of moose tags to non residents has gone on far too long and will likely be fixed with this new Governor appointed task force as will the tweaking of the money and funding. Problems which can be easily resolved with proper management and Wyoming citizenry input.
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
398
I don’t see the millions in revenue losses as a kick in the bucket! Especially with Wyo’s current financial status. The revenue loss has to be picked up somewhere? Who’s pocket is it going to come from? It’s crazy to think it doesn’t matter!

I’m sure Wyo res will be thrilled with offering more commissioners tags! That’s like robbing both res and nonres of tags.

I would think 90/10 would have passed years ago if budget and revenue wasn’t a big deal?
It has been looked at before but there was always high enough satisfaction with the current system. Now with moose and sheep numbers depressed and Mule deer herds down considerably it’s time to adjust the numbers more equitable to what most Western states offer ie a 90/10 system. Wyoming residents giving up on 25% of all moose tags just won’t float anymore. As far as revenue goes the new Governor appointed task force will tweak the numbers to get the revenue as required. The 500 Commissioner tags was just an example to show how easy it is to raise $5 Million. Many other solutions can be done to offset any revenue losses and yes Wyoming residents are ready for license increases in exchange for more hunting “Opportunity.”
 

PLK

Active Member
Messages
249
highfastflyer,
Why not just pick a date such as January 1, 2021 and simply state that any resident or non-resident that draws a bighorn sheep or moose tag after this date is not eligible to draw another tag. This way, the folks with preference points won’t be punished.
Seems practical to me.
 

jims

Very Active Member
Messages
2,319
The reality of it all is that nonres actually don't take that many tags away from Wyo res. Increasing Wyo resident tag allotments really isn't going to accomplish a whole lot. If Wyo res want to significantly increase there odds of drawing quality tags 90/10 definitely isn't the answer!

Use unit 7 elk as an example. According to the WG&F draw odd stats there were 1,015 resident and 172 nonres type 1 tags issued in 2020. There were 4,544 Wyo residents that applied for 1,015 resident tags.

If nonres tags are cut in 1/2 that would mean an additional 86 tags to Wyo res or 1,101 total tags. There was 22% chance of drawing a tag in 2020. If 86 additional tags were issued to Wyo res draw odds would increase to a whopping 24%.

Do you really think cutting nonres tags in 1/2 and increasing Wyo res draw odds by 2% is really worth the revenue loss and headaches 90/10 would cause? Would Wyo residents really be that much better off?

If Wyo res want something that will SIGNIFICANTLY increase their draw odds I have a noval idea. How about something simple to implement that would double their chance of drawing an elk tag in some units?

Looking at unit 7 elk again with the same 4,544 Wyo res applicants vying for the same 1,101 elk tags. What happens if there is a 2 year waiting period after a hunter draws a limited type 1 elk tag? Wyo res that draw still would be eligible to hunt general elk during the 2 year wait. There would be 2,202 less hunters eligible to apply each year. With the same 4,544 applicants the draw odds suddenly would increase from 22% to a whopping 48%.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that increasing draw odds from 22 to 24% with 90/10 is meager compared to 48% draw odds with a 2 year waiting period in unit 7.

If Wyo res want to significantly increase their elk draw odds this is something that works in their favor! Waiting 2 years after drawing a quality limited tag is nothing. I think it would be worth a 2 year wait to have significantly better draw odds? Obviously draw odds won't increase as dramatically in the toughest draw units but it sure makes a difference in other units with higher tag turn-over. I assure you that 90/10 definitely won't improve draw odds in high demand units anyways!

There is no point creep to worry about with a 2 yr wait like a pref pt system. It is guaranteed better draw odds for those that haven't drawn. Maybe I'm missing something but this sure seems like something to seriously consider. There won't be the headaches associated with lost revenues of 90/10 and no need to increase Wyo res tag fees. It sure seems like a great compromise?
 
Last edited:

nripepi

Very Active Member
Messages
1,545
The reality of it all is that nonres actually don't take that many tags away from Wyo res. Increasing Wyo resident tag allotments really isn't going to accomplish a whole lot. If Wyo res want to significantly increase there odds of drawing quality tags 90/10 definitely isn't the answer!
Unit 7 is an interesting example for sure. With the current allotment of 11.87% tags to non-residents, what would happen in a 90/10 split scenario? Would that only drop to 10% or would it be cut in half like Jims is assuming which as he shows does not change your likelihood of drawing much as a resident.

That is the question, is that change (obviously different for different hunt codes) worth the significant loss of revenue? I am sure some will say that revenue will not go away, non-residents will just pay more, but I am not sure if that is true. Some on this thread have already mentioned that they stopped applying in New Mexico because of their decision to totally screw non-res DIY hunters. I guess that is the question on the table, how much of the $43 million in revenue would Wyoming lose if they go to 90/10?
 

grosventrehunter

Very Active Member
Messages
1,333
The reality of it all is that nonres actually don't take that many tags away from Wyo res. Increasing Wyo resident tag allotments really isn't going to accomplish a whole lot. If Wyo res want to significantly increase there odds of drawing quality tags 90/10 definitely isn't the answer!

Use unit 7 elk as an example. According to the WG&F draw odd stats there were 1,015 resident and 172 nonres type 1 tags issued in 2020. There were 4,544 Wyo residents that applied for 1,015 resident tags.

If nonres tags are cut in 1/2 that would mean an additional 86 tags to Wyo res or 1,101 total tags. There was 22% chance of drawing a tag in 2020. If 86 additional tags were issued to Wyo res draw odds would increase to a whopping 24%.

Do you really think cutting nonres tags in 1/2 and increasing Wyo res draw odds by 2% is really worth the revenue loss and headaches 90/10 would cause? Would Wyo residents really be that much better off?

If Wyo res want something that will SIGNIFICANTLY increase their draw odds I have a noval idea. How about something simple to implement that would double their chance of drawing an elk tag in some units?

Looking at unit 7 elk again with the same 4,544 Wyo res applicants vying for the same 1,101 elk tags. What happens if there is a 2 year waiting period after a hunter draws a limited type 1 elk tag? Wyo res that draw still would be eligible to hunt general elk during the 2 year wait. There would be 2,202 less hunters eligible to apply each year. With the same 4,544 applicants the draw odds suddenly would increase from 22% to a whopping 48%.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that increasing draw odds from 22 to 24% with 90/10 is meager compared to 48% draw odds with a 2 year waiting period in unit 7.

If Wyo res want to significantly increase their elk draw odds this is something that works in their favor! Waiting 2 years after drawing a quality limited tag is nothing. I think it would be worth a 2 year wait to have significantly better draw odds? Obviously draw odds won't increase as dramatically in the toughest draw units but it sure makes a difference in other units with higher tag turn-over. I assure you that 90/10 definitely won't improve draw odds in high demand units anyways!

There is no point creep to worry about with a 2 yr wait like a pref pt system. It is guaranteed better draw odds for those that haven't drawn. Maybe I'm missing something but this sure seems like something to seriously consider. There won't be the headaches associated with lost revenues of 90/10 and no need to increase Wyo res tag fees. It sure seems like a great compromise?
I love how Jim's is all about the NR yet screws them every chance he gets. I think Founder is in the same boat. What a bunch of hypocrites.
 
Last edited:

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,675
Looks to me like jim's and nripepi didn't do all that great in math either...try again with unit 7. NRs received their full 16% allocation of type 1 tags.

Residents receiving more lq tags in the higher quality areas is a big deal...and there would be more elk license revenue generated via an increase in special fee NR general elk tags when 90-10 happens...FACT.
 

LivingTheDream

Active Member
Messages
165
This might be a silly question, but if Moose Tags are down 75% and sheep tags are down 50% and the deer herd is hurting, shouldn't that be the top three items the task force is addressing?

I feel like saying our herds are hurting so let's shift the tag allocation around is not a long term solution that is sustainable.
 

nripepi

Very Active Member
Messages
1,545
Looks to me like jim's and nripepi didn't do all that great in math either...try again with unit 7. NRs received their full 16% allocation of type 1 tags.

Residents receiving more lq tags in the higher quality areas is a big deal...and there would be more elk license revenue generated via an increase in special fee NR general elk tags when 90-10 happens...FACT.
It was 14.5% last year, guess we are all having issues with math!

172 / (172 + 1015) = 14.5%

So if you moved 4.5% of the 172 non-resident tags to resident tags (round up to 8 tags total get moved), the odds go from: 22.3% to 22.5%! Is that worth it? I am sure it is better in other units and species...but this is not going to help that much for resident odds.

Even if you took every non-resident tag in Unit 7 and moved it to a resident tag, you would go from 22.3% to 26.1% odds for residents.
 

PLK

Active Member
Messages
249
BuzzH,

I’d like to see your math. I counted 178 NR Area 7 Type 1 tags and 1015 Resident Area 7 Type 1 tags. So 178/1193=14.9%. Not sure how you came up with 16%. So if the NR percentage was cut to 10%, this would mean a 33% reduction in Area 7 NR tags. Approximately 59 tags would go back to the residents.
 

PLK

Active Member
Messages
249
nripepi,

If the NR allocation is supposed to be 16% and there are 1193 total tags, then NR should receive approximately 191 total tags. If the NR allocation is reduced to 10%, then NR should receive approximately 119 total tags. This would be a reduction of 72 NR tags.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,675
nripepi,

If the NR allocation is supposed to be 16% and there are 1193 total tags, then NR should receive approximately 191 total tags. If the NR allocation is reduced to 10%, then NR should receive approximately 119 total tags. This would be a reduction of 72 NR tags.
Did you, sebastian or nripepi bother to consider landowner tags before you did your math?

Guess not.

NR's got their full 16% allocation.
 

jims

Very Active Member
Messages
2,319
The exact number of tags is irrelevant! The point I’m making is that converting to 90/10 hardly increases Wyo res draw odds. If Wyo res want to substantially improve there chance of drawing they should consider a 2 year wait for elk!

Nothing has changed with Buzz’s responses! He scrambles things around and never answers the questions at hand!

1) Buzz, please explain in detail to all of us where Wyo is going to make up for lost of millions in lost revenue? With a bunch of cow and 1/2 price doe tags? That’s a bunch of crock!

2) Buzz, explain how going 90/10 is going to signifantly improve draw odds to Wyo res in high demand units where nonres generally are issued 1 tag?

3). Buzz, explain clearly how a 2 year wait for residents doesn’t significantly improve their draw odds in unit 7?
 

WapitiBob

Long Time Member
Messages
4,753
Jims, WY will see a revenue increase if they go to a 90/10 split. As Buzz said, it's a fact. It'll take you 30 minutes or so to get the numbers figured out. And the revenue isn't coming from cow licenses.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,675
The exact number of tags is irrelevant! The point I’m making is that converting to 90/10 hardly increases Wyo res draw odds. If Wyo res want to substantially improve there chance of drawing they should consider a 2 year wait for elk!

Nothing has changed with Buzz’s responses! He scrambles things around and never answers the questions at hand!

1) Buzz, please explain in detail to all of us where Wyo is going to make up for lost of millions in lost revenue? With a bunch of cow and 1/2 price doe tags? That’s a bunch of crock!

2) Buzz, explain how going 90/10 is going to signifantly improve draw odds to Wyo res in high demand units where nonres generally are issued 1 tag?

3). Buzz, explain clearly how a 2 year wait for residents doesn’t significantly improve their draw odds in unit 7?
Sure...not a problem.

1. Statute says, 7,250 full price tags be issued to NR's. Doesnt matter if they're general tags or LQ tags. In fact, there would be more revenue generated from NR elk tag sales by going 90-10. The 6% cut from the LQ tags would be made up for with general tags. From there the 60-40 special split of general tags would mean an INCREASE in the number of special priced NR elk tags over-all. Meaning more revenue coming in from NR elk tag sales.

2. Every tag a resident draws by increasing tags from the 90-10 split is increasing that individual Residents opportunity by 100%.

3. Waiting periods don't work as advertised, plus each year, its not giving any more total residents more tags. People jump around applying and you're wrongly assuming that only the same people apply in the exact same units for a 2 year stretch. Plus, you cherry picked a unit with lots of tags that already has good odds. In the tougher to draw units, a 2 year wait period wont change odds at all.

Simply put, Residents getting 90% instead instead of 75%, 84%, 80% means more opportunity for residents. FACT.

Any other questions?
 

Cahunter805

Very Active Member
Messages
2,860
Buzz/JM or other Residents. I understand and appreciate the generosity of WY to NR and fully appreciate everything you do for the wildlife.
What if the sheep/moose tags went to 90/10 and the elk/deer/antelope were left the same? It seems most residents usually talk about the sheep or moose tags before any other species.
 

jims

Very Active Member
Messages
2,319
Buzz,
1) I'm sure general, cow, and doe tags will be popular for nonres! Do you think Wyo will loose $ from guys not investing in pref pts? There also will likely fewer nonres willing to start building pref pts if draw odds become worse than they already are?

2) Show us numbers in several of the limited units you are talking about where Wyo res draw odds will improve. How many special and regular priced tags are currently issued in units 56 and 59. How many more tags will be issued to Wyo res?

3) What would the res draw odds be in 7 using the 2020 draw data if there was a 2 year wait? What would Wyo res draw odds be in 7 with 90/10? Are these numbers even close?

4) Does it make sense that Wyo res draw odds will improve dramatically in many units scatttered across Wyo with a 2 year wait vs a 90/10 split?
 

WapitiBob

Long Time Member
Messages
4,753
Buzz/JM or other Residents. I understand and appreciate the generosity of WY to NR and fully appreciate everything you do for the wildlife.
What if the sheep/moose tags went to 90/10 and the elk/deer/antelope were left the same? It seems most residents usually talk about the sheep or moose tags before any other species.
That seems to be the general consensus.
 

jims

Very Active Member
Messages
2,319
Here's more interesting info for the 2 year wait:

Unit 19 is another popular elk unit. In 2020 there were 117 res tags and 602 res applicants. There were 13 nonres tags issued in the type 1 hunt. Wyo res draw odds were 19% in 2020. If ALL 13 nonres tags were issued to res draw odds would increase from 19 to a whopping 21%. An increase in draw odds of 3% if ALL tags were taken from nonres is nothing to brag about!

If the 2 year wait was imposed, according to the 2020 draw stats there would be 234 fewer Wyo res applying for the same 602 tags. Draw odd without a 2 year wait is 19% and with a 2 year wait Wyo res draw odds would increase to 32%. Remember....draw odds would increase to 32% if ALL nonres tags were handed over to res. Wow, another leap in draw odds for Wyo res elk hunters with a 2 year wait program!

If you are a Wyo res and like to hunt limited elk units on a fairly regular basis.....the difference in draw odds between a 2 year wait and 90/10 is not even close! Vote for a 2 year wait and your chances for drawing limited elk tags will DRAMATICALLY increase in many units!

90/10 is a loser for deer, elk, and antelope! There are a lot better options that will actually offer Wyo res better draw odds!
 
Last edited:

nripepi

Very Active Member
Messages
1,545
1. Statute says, 7,250 full price tags be issued to NR's. Doesnt matter if they're general tags or LQ tags. In fact, there would be more revenue generated from NR elk tag sales by going 90-10. The 6% cut from the LQ tags would be made up for with general tags. From there the 60-40 special split of general tags would mean an INCREASE in the number of special priced NR elk tags over-all. Meaning more revenue coming in from NR elk tag sales.
Isn't the 6% cut from both the 60 and 40 splits from LQ? How does that increase revenue by moving those to general? Maybe a few tags move here and there because of rounding, but wouldn't the 60/40 split still be in place for all non-res tags for LQ and General. Just curious as this doesn't make sense to me.
 

nripepi

Very Active Member
Messages
1,545
Did you, sebastian or nripepi bother to consider landowner tags before you did your math?

Guess not.

NR's got their full 16% allocation.
I am not sure how many landowner tags are in 7? But if it were 100, then 34 of those would have to be non-resident landowners for it to come out to 16%.

If you assume that is the number, then your odds go up from 22.3% to 24% if all of those tags go to the non-landowner resident pool (which they wouldn't...some would go back for resident landowners).
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
398
highfastflyer,
Why not just pick a date such as January 1, 2021 and simply state that any resident or non-resident that draws a bighorn sheep or moose tag after this date is not eligible to draw another tag. This way, the folks with preference points won’t be punished.
Seems practical to me.
In Wyoming there are actually not that many residents who sheep and moose hunt. In the 1960s my Grandfather drew 3 tags in a 10 year period as the odds were quite good in many of those areas. He also drew 4 moose tags over his lifetime as again the numbers were quite high and he was a lucky guy. I wish I had his luck. The point is when we were issuing 2000 moose tags per year not everyone wants to hunt moose or sheep so of the 45,000 active hunters we normally only had half that many put in for moose. With the preference point system it made the draw such that you can draw about every 25-30 years if you’re willing to hunt in some of the less desirable areas. Wh6 should we take that “Opportunity”. away from resident hunters? Just because you as a non-resident don’t like it that we have such odds? I don’t think the sheep numbers will probably allow more than a once in a lifetime for the foreseeable future but with proper wolf and grizzly management it’s very possible the moose population could regenerate again. Just look at the areas where there are no wolves and Grizzlies, those areas are now booming with moose again. Should we force Alaska residents to only harvest one moose in their lifetimes, how about one Dall sheep in their lifetimes, just because some non-resident doesn’t like the fact that a resident got to harvest more than one moose in their lifetime. Stop trying to project yourself into how we as Wyoming residents manage our resident game. The fact is Wyoming has been giving away far, far too many moose and sheep tags for far too long and that imbalance needs to come back to us as residents.
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
398
Isn't the 6% cut from both the 60 and 40 splits from LQ? How does that increase revenue by moving those to general? Maybe a few tags move here and there because of rounding, but wouldn't the 60/40 split still be in place for all non-res tags for LQ and General. Just curious as this doesn't make sense to me.
You’re good at asking questions about how the Wyoming draw system works. I suggest you wait one year until after the task force has implemented a 90/10 system then go study up. The point is Wyoming has been far far too generous in giving away 25% of their moose tags and 20% of sheep tags and that imbalance is soon going to be fixed with plenty of Wyoming resident input to the task force made up of Wyoming residents.
 

jims

Very Active Member
Messages
2,319
Seems to me that it would make a lot more sense for a task force to work towards a program that actually offers Wyo res a better chance to draw tags and has virtuallty no impact on Wyo revenue!

I understand completely about sheep and moose. There are so few tags issued and demand is so high. As mentioned several times above, Wyo is super generous compared to other states to nonres for these species. Each tag is SUPER special!

The tough part about sheep and moose is that there are a lot of both res and nonres that have a lot of time and $ invested in the pref pt program. At $150 a pop/year for nonres to gain a point many nonres have a lifetime devoted to applying it's a tough situation for the WG&F.

How time flies! The sheep pref pt system has been in existence for 25 years! I sure wouldn't want to be the guy responsible for telling nonres below max pts that their tags are cut and they slim to 0 chance to draw a tag in their lifetime. It may take more than a lifetime to draw with these changes? It doesn't seem too terribly "fair" to change things mid-stream? Obviously it would be nice for Wyo res kids to have the chance to draw a tag in their lifetime but at the expense of nonres that have been in the program for 20+ years? Hard call if you ask me! To add wood to the fire, outfitters charge extraordinary fees to guide sheep and moose hunters in wilderness. 90/10 would pull the plug out from under a bunch of outfitters that make a pretty good living off each guided sheep and moose hunter. Obviously outfitters don't matter to several Wyo res on this forum but believe it or not they are Wyo res and are trying to make a living? I would likely think differently if they took desirable tags away from my res friends and family. Where is the line drawn in the sand? Either way it's a tough decision!
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
398
Seems to me that it would make a lot more sense for a task force to work towards a program that actually offers Wyo res a better chance to draw tags and has virtuallty no impact on Wyo revenue!

I understand completely about sheep and moose. There are so few tags issued and demand is so high. As mentioned several times above, Wyo is super generous compared to other states to nonres for these species. Each tag is SUPER special!

The tough part about sheep and moose is that there are a lot of both res and nonres that have a lot of time and $ invested in the pref pt program. At $150 a pop/year for nonres to gain a point many nonres have a lifetime devoted to applying it's a tough situation for the WG&F.

How time flies! The sheep pref pt system has been in existence for 25 years! I sure wouldn't want to be the guy responsible for telling nonres below max pts that their tags are cut and they slim to 0 chance to draw a tag in their lifetime. It may take more than a lifetime to draw with these changes? It doesn't seem too terribly "fair" to change things mid-stream? Obviously it would be nice for Wyo res kids to have the chance to draw a tag in their lifetime but at the expense of nonres that have been in the program for 20+ years? Hard call if you ask me! To add wood to the fire, outfitters charge extraordinary fees to guide sheep and moose hunters in wilderness. 90/10 would pull the plug out from under a bunch of outfitters that make a pretty good living off each guided sheep and moose hunter. Obviously outfitters don't matter to several Wyo res on this forum but believe it or not they are Wyo res and are trying to make a living? I would likely think differently if they took desirable tags away from my res friends and family. Where is the line drawn in the sand? Either way it's a tough decision!
You haven’t kept up with the Wyoming draw system. I suggest you study up a bit but probably best to wait a year after the task force implements a 90/10 system. It won’t be a hard sell at all to Wyoming residents as we have been far far too generous for far too long. Actually will be easy to sell this imbalance. Going back to your point about preference points the change for 2021 allows a nonresident to "Opt". out of paying for a preference point if they so choose. Knowing the changes and the system may help improve your draw odds and your strategy. Wait a year and study up.
 

elkantlers

Very Active Member
Messages
2,461
math.jpg
 

nripepi

Very Active Member
Messages
1,545
You haven’t kept up with the Wyoming draw system. I suggest you study up a bit but probably best to wait a year after the task force implements a 90/10 system. It won’t be a hard sell at all to Wyoming residents as we have been far far too generous for far too long. Actually will be easy to sell this imbalance. Going back to your point about preference points the change for 2021 allows a nonresident to "Opt". out of paying for a preference point if they so choose. Knowing the changes and the system may help improve your draw odds and your strategy. Wait a year and study up.
The issue is what do you do with those people that have 20 sheep points and have invested 20 years and getting close to $2000 in points because they did the odds and knew they would likely draw a tag in the next 10 years even if quotas drop. Now that next 10 years becomes 25 years and you are wondering if you can get it done in your 80s or if you should drop out now?

Sure, one can say that you are not guaranteed anything by buying a point, but you were told this is the system for 20 years and now in 2020 it changes and you are screwed. I would think you should be offered your money back for those points. Agreed?

Wyoming has run the G&F off the backs of non-residents for decades. It has been a win-win. I think everyone completely understands that everyone (residents, non-residents, outfitters, landowners....) wants more and better tags and no one is blaming residents for advocating for that. It is just no one seems to recognize the amount of money coming from non-residents will likely decrease significantly (in tags and points) and the only plan I see to make up that money is 500 new commissioner licenses and raising non-resident fees and tags even more then they are.
 

nripepi

Very Active Member
Messages
1,545
You’re good at asking questions about how the Wyoming draw system works. I suggest you wait one year until after the task force has implemented a 90/10 system then go study up. The point is Wyoming has been far far too generous in giving away 25% of their moose tags and 20% of sheep tags and that imbalance is soon going to be fixed with plenty of Wyoming resident input to the task force made up of Wyoming residents.
I just asked a simple question, how does moving 100 tags from LQ to General increase revenue? I don't understand it and was just curious.

The rest seems to be simple math to most, every tag moved from a non-res to a res reduces revenue significantly. That is fine if that is what Wyoming wants to do and they can take the $millions lost in revenue and lay off 50+ people or whatever that number comes out to (or sell 500 more commissioner tags like Utah does).

It seems like what Buzz is saying is that non-res licenses won't actually decrease (and revenue will stay the same), you will just be moved from a LQ tag drawn as a first choice to a lesser desired leftover tag drawn as a 2nd choice or leftover? Is that what the plan is? That doesn't sound sustainable at all, at some point in time (maybe really soon) those less desirable tags may be desirable to residents. At that point, you are out $millions. Heck, we have seen that in the last decade with antelope tags that used be able to be drawn as 2nd choice or leftover and now are gone as 1st choice. How about doe antelope tags, it is really hard to draw one now versus historically when it was much easier.

The only options I see that are valid are: more commissioner licenses or raise non-resident fees even more.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,675
I am not sure how many landowner tags are in 7? But if it were 100, then 34 of those would have to be non-resident landowners for it to come out to 16%.

If you assume that is the number, then your odds go up from 22.3% to 24% if all of those tags go to the non-landowner resident pool (which they wouldn't...some would go back for resident landowners).
Research how the draw works in regard to the order of the draw...NR's got their full 16% allocation of lq elk tags in every unit.
 

jm77

Very Active Member
Messages
1,993
I just asked a simple question, how does moving 100 tags from LQ to General increase revenue? I don't understand it and was just curious.

The rest seems to be simple math to most, every tag moved from a non-res to a res reduces revenue significantly. That is fine if that is what Wyoming wants to do and they can take the $millions lost in revenue and lay off 50+ people or whatever that number comes out to (or sell 500 more commissioner tags like Utah does).

It seems like what Buzz is saying is that non-res licenses won't actually decrease (and revenue will stay the same), you will just be moved from a LQ tag drawn as a first choice to a lesser desired leftover tag drawn as a 2nd choice or leftover? Is that what the plan is? That doesn't sound sustainable at all, at some point in time (maybe really soon) those less desirable tags may be desirable to residents. At that point, you are out $millions. Heck, we have seen that in the last decade with antelope tags that used be able to be drawn as 2nd choice or leftover and now are gone as 1st choice. How about doe antelope tags, it is really hard to draw one now versus historically when it was much easier.

The only options I see that are valid are: more commissioner licenses or raise non-resident fees even more.
Read post #122 under #1. There would be no revenue lost with 90/10 on elk.

Not sure where you come up with 500 Commissioner tags, but do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but that is pure fantasy.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,675
I just asked a simple question, how does moving 100 tags from LQ to General increase revenue? I don't understand it and was just curious.

The rest seems to be simple math to most, every tag moved from a non-res to a res reduces revenue significantly. That is fine if that is what Wyoming wants to do and they can take the $millions lost in revenue and lay off 50+ people or whatever that number comes out to (or sell 500 more commissioner tags like Utah does).

It seems like what Buzz is saying is that non-res licenses won't actually decrease (and revenue will stay the same), you will just be moved from a LQ tag drawn as a first choice to a lesser desired leftover tag drawn as a 2nd choice or leftover? Is that what the plan is? That doesn't sound sustainable at all, at some point in time (maybe really soon) those less desirable tags may be desirable to residents. At that point, you are out $millions. Heck, we have seen that in the last decade with antelope tags that used be able to be drawn as 2nd choice or leftover and now are gone as 1st choice. How about doe antelope tags, it is really hard to draw one now versus historically when it was much easier.

The only options I see that are valid are: more commissioner licenses or raise non-resident fees even more.
Not what I'm saying at all...read this carefully...then when you're done read it again.

STATUTE (law) says that NR's will receive 7,250 full price elk tags. Lets be clear...7,250. If NR's are limited to 10% of the LQ tags. For the sake of argument lets say that currently there are 4250 LQ tags drawn by NR's...that means the balance of 7250 is 3000 general tags are issued to comply with the law.

We cut 6% from the LQ pool by only issuing 10%. That 6% cut will be issued via INCREASING general NR tags. Meaning that the 60-40 split will INCREASE the number of general NR special fee licenses sold (demand is wayyy exceeding supply). More special fee licenses means more revenue to the GF. There will be an increase in elk revenue via a 90-10 split based on the increase in special fee licenses sold. Ask Wapitibob or do the math yourself. Plus, that doesnt take into account the additional tags that Residents may have applied for on their second choice (think type-4's) that would be sold to NR's for higher fees.

You and Sebastian need to do that math...there will be an increase in revenue to the Department with a 90-10 split...no two ways about it. Now, go read the above again.

Cutting LQ deer tags would be a small loss in revenue, no doubt. But, keep in mind a vast majority of NR deer tags are region tags. That wouldnt change under 90-10. What will change is the number of LQ tags, of which that arent many to start with. No doubt some revenue loss there.

Cutting pronghorn, non-issue. All it will do is shift more resident tags to the better areas. Lots of pronghorn areas go undersubscribed and Wyoming already issues over 50% of the available tags to NR's anyway. There wouldnt be any revenue loss, just force more NR's into the harder to access areas (we're currently selling out most of those areas already).

There arent enough sheep, moose, goat, and bison tags to even mention from a revenue loss standpoint by giving Residents 90%...but there would be revenue loss.

Keep in mind too that the Department is currently in very stable financial shape...very stable. With the increase in PR/DJ funding as well as a self-imposed cut to spending...the Department is way in the black.

Any revenue loss can easily be made up for a variety of very easy ways.

Just a matter of time before 90-10 passes, residents rightfully want more opportunity for themselves.
 

nripepi

Very Active Member
Messages
1,545
Read post #122 under #1. There would be no revenue lost with 90/10 on elk.

Not sure where you come up with 500 Commissioner tags, but do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but that is pure fantasy.
Because they would add those LQ tags that were moved to resident tags to more general tags given to non-residents, I got that as it is because of the legislation giving a set number of elk tags to non-residents. That is not what I asked, I asked how the revenue would increase, how would tags move from the lower price to the higher price fee? How about deer and antelope, what happens there to those tags that brought in $14.7 million, how do they stay the same or in the case of elk increase?

That idea came from highfastflyer, post #109. "An easy way to earn $5 Million is just sell 500 Commissioner tags for $10,000 each." Sounds ridiculous to me, but what do I know, seems like one of the solutions.

I don't want this to become more of a pissing match then it already has. I thank Wyoming and their residents for every opportunity I have had and will have in the future to hunt your great state. I understand you have to manage in your best interests and that is what you should advocate for. But you should give every non-resident a pat on the back and say thank you for sending $100s to $1000s per year to WY (I send over $400 in preference point money alone). Almost every G&F employee I have met in the field has said thank you for purchasing a non-resident tag and many have said directly that helps pay my salary. We all want the same thing here, the opportunity to pass on what we love to do to the next generation and when things change and you have invested time and money, people get a bit on edge.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,675
Because they would add those LQ tags that were moved to resident tags to more general tags given to non-residents, I got that as it is because of the legislation giving a set number of elk tags to non-residents. That is not what I asked, I asked how the revenue would increase, how would tags move from the lower price to the higher price fee? How about deer and antelope, what happens there to those tags that brought in $14.7 million, how do they stay the same or in the case of elk increase?

That idea came from highfastflyer, post #109. "An easy way to earn $5 Million is just sell 500 Commissioner tags for $10,000 each." Sounds ridiculous to me, but what do I know, seems like one of the solutions.

I don't want this to become more of a pissing match then it already has. I thank Wyoming and their residents for every opportunity I have had and will have in the future to hunt your great state. I understand you have to manage in your best interests and that is what you should advocate for. But you should give every non-resident a pat on the back and say thank you for sending $100s to $1000s per year to WY (I send over $400 in preference point money alone). Almost every G&F employee I have met in the field has said thank you for purchasing a non-resident tag and many have said directly that helps pay my salary. We all want the same thing here, the opportunity to pass on what we love to do to the next generation and when things change and you have invested time and money, people get a bit on edge.
To answer the question specific to elk...more total NR general elk tags, the more there are that go into the special fee pool...which are all being bought currently with wayyyyy more than enough room to spare.
 

nripepi

Very Active Member
Messages
1,545
We cut 6% from the LQ pool by only issuing 10%. That 6% cut will be issued via INCREASING general NR tags. Meaning that the 60-40 split will INCREASE the number of general NR special fee licenses sold (demand is wayyy exceeding supply). More special fee licenses means more revenue to the GF. There will be an increase in elk revenue via a 90-10 split based on the increase in special fee licenses sold.
I read it five times, maybe I am just slow. Don't the original 6% cut come from 60% of the regular and 40% of the special licenses that were LQ and then they are sent from LQ to General in the same 60/40 split? Am I missing something here? Are some of those undersubscribed in the non-resident special and got moved to the non-resident regular draw? Is that what is happening? Just curious. Seems like the revenue would stay the same in this scenario for elk.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,675
Because they would add those LQ tags that were moved to resident tags to more general tags given to non-residents, I got that as it is because of the legislation giving a set number of elk tags to non-residents. That is not what I asked, I asked how the revenue would increase, how would tags move from the lower price to the higher price fee? How about deer and antelope, what happens there to those tags that brought in $14.7 million, how do they stay the same or in the case of elk increase?

That idea came from highfastflyer, post #109. "An easy way to earn $5 Million is just sell 500 Commissioner tags for $10,000 each." Sounds ridiculous to me, but what do I know, seems like one of the solutions.

I don't want this to become more of a pissing match then it already has. I thank Wyoming and their residents for every opportunity I have had and will have in the future to hunt your great state. I understand you have to manage in your best interests and that is what you should advocate for. But you should give every non-resident a pat on the back and say thank you for sending $100s to $1000s per year to WY (I send over $400 in preference point money alone). Almost every G&F employee I have met in the field has said thank you for purchasing a non-resident tag and many have said directly that helps pay my salary. We all want the same thing here, the opportunity to pass on what we love to do to the next generation and when things change and you have invested time and money, people get a bit on edge.
I've thanked a ton of NR's for buying tags here, some that post on this board.

I've never been thanked one time for buying a NR tag in another state and I've bought a metric chit-ton of them. The residents there don't owe me a thing, including a thank-you. or a single one of their tags.

Unlike the entitled crew on MM, I'll thank every Resident of every state I've ever drawn a tag in, or even had the opportunity to apply for as NR...they don't have to issue NR's anything, and frankly in many cases, they shouldn't.
 

WapitiBob

Long Time Member
Messages
4,753
Under the current system nr don’t draw the full quota of lq licenses in the draw. Because nr are legislated 7250 full price licenses (16% of total), the dept goes back and allocates the difference between what we draw and the 7250 and, per regulation, allocates (back fills) them to special Gen licenses. They go back and fill remaining 1st choice then 2nd choice until they hit the 7250.
By reducing the nr lq licenses to 10%, the difference between what nr draw and that 7250 increases. You then have more special gen licenses being issued thru the quota balance and with special licenses at $1300, the revenue increase is substantial.
Those backfill licenses are why special gen was a 2nd choice, they used to issue hundreds. Those licenses are also not shown on the odds report and as such, special random odds are better than what the demand report shows.

Also, nr do not fund the majority of the dept budget. Nr fund the majority of license sales but 75% of 60% isn’t 50% of the total.
 
Last edited:

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
398
The issue is what do you do with those people that have 20 sheep points and have invested 20 years and getting close to $2000 in points because they did the odds and knew they would likely draw a tag in the next 10 years even if quotas drop. Now that next 10 years becomes 25 years and you are wondering if you can get it done in your 80s or if you should drop out now?

Sure, one can say that you are not guaranteed anything by buying a point, but you were told this is the system for 20 years and now in 2020 it changes and you are screwed. I would think you should be offered your money back for those points. Agreed?

Wyoming has run the G&F off the backs of non-residents for decades. It has been a win-win. I think everyone completely understands that everyone (residents, non-residents, outfitters, landowners....) wants more and better tags and no one is blaming residents for advocating for that. It is just no one seems to recognize the amount of money coming from non-residents will likely decrease significantly (in tags and points) and the only plan I see to make up that money is 500 new commissioner licenses and raising non-resident fees and tags even more then they are.
Waah, waah, waah, my heart bleeds for them. No guarantees were made, no 20 year plan was promised and besides it’s still a chance you might still draw. Your entitlement mentality is what is wrong with society today. Life isn’t fair, things change, if you want to play you have to pay. There is no guarantees in life, deal with it. Wyoming has been far far too generous for far too long and its time we equalise the imbalance as almost every Western state does with premium tags like sheep and moose. The 25% giveaway is going away very soon with this new task force. If you’re age 35 and have 20 points I’d stick with it. If you’re age 70 then keep trying to win the lottery if you desire but don’t come on here crying you can’t win. There are no guarantees in life.
 

Cahunter805

Very Active Member
Messages
2,860
Under the current system nr don’t draw the full quota of lq licenses in the draw. Because nr are legislated 7250 full price licenses (16% of total), the dept goes back and allocates the difference between what we draw and the 7250 and per regulation, allocates (back fills) them to special Gen licenses. They go back and fill remaining 1st choice then 2nd choice until they hit the 7250.
By reducing the nr lq licenses to 10%, the difference between what nr draw and that 7250 increases. You then have more special gen licenses being issued thru the quota balance and with special licenses at $1300, the revenue increase is substantial.
Those backfill licenses are why special gen was a 2nd choice, they used to issue hundreds. Those licenses are also not shown on the odds report and as such, special random odds are better than what the demand report shows.

Also, nr do not fund the majority of the dept budget. Nr fund the majority of license sales but 75% of 60% isn’t 50% of the total.

This is how I understood it also. Just curious though if the LQ tags were reduced by 6% I understand they fill the 7250 quota with general tags. But some of that increase in revenue would be a wash as there is lost revenue from less Special LQ tags but it would still be an increase in revenue overall due to all the quota fill tags would be special general tags. Hope that makes sense.

Again why can’t the 90/10 only apply to sheep/moose. This seems like the area most residents feel strongly about and I tend to agree with them.
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
398
This is how I understood it also. Just curious though if the LQ tags were reduced by 6% I understand they fill the 7250 quota with general tags. But some of that increase in revenue would be a wash as there is lost revenue from less Special LQ tags but it would still be an increase in revenue overall due to all the quota fill tags would be special general tags. Hope that makes sense.

Again why can’t the 90/10 only apply to sheep/moose. This seems like the area most residents feel strongly about and I tend to agree with them.
It certainly could just be a sheep and moose mechanism. Nothing has been decided as the committee hasn’t even been chosen yet. Elk numbers are the highest in history so most residents don’t complain about that as much and the popular Western Wyoming units for deer have already been chopped way back and those are General licenses for residents anyways. Give the system some time, nothing has been discussed or even debated yet, time will tell.
 

mulecreek

Very Active Member
Messages
1,379
Again why can’t the 90/10 only apply to sheep/moose. This seems like the area most residents feel strongly about and I tend to agree with them.
It can and as a resident there was a day and time where I agreed that the only need for 90/10 was for moose and sheep but that time has come and gone. The more I hear nr’s ***** and moan about what wyo can and cannot do and the more I hear nr’s try to tell wyo what it should do with its tags the more I think 90/10 across the board is a great idea. Also get rid of the reduced price cow tags for nr’s, make them type 4’s and throw them back into the 7250 quota. The only reason they went to reduced price in the first place was because people weren’t taking them. That time has also come and gone.
 

Cahunter805

Very Active Member
Messages
2,860
I would hate to see the type 6/7 elk tags go away. It’s a nice option and am thankful that WY has it. Certainly wish I would have utilized it a bit more in years past but still like the option of the cow tag. It’s also a great way to take new hunters and get them experience and fill the freezer. 3 of my buddies drew their first ever elk tag a type 6 this year and had a blast.
 

nripepi

Very Active Member
Messages
1,545
all the quota fill tags would be special general tags. Hope that makes sense.
Thanks. That explains it, but I guess I don't understand why all of these new general tags would go special? I would think only 40% would go special.

I guess the majority of residents are okay with having 1000s of more non-residents hunting general?
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,675
Thanks. That explains it, but I guess I don't understand why all of these new general tags would go special? I would think only 40% would go special.

I guess the majority of residents are okay with having 1000s of more non-residents hunting general?
It's a push...all the residents that would have hunted general if they didn't draw a lq tag won't be there. Plus spreading another 1500 or so NRs out over the large number of areas...non-issue. If I have too I can always lose a vast majority of NR pressure by hunting designated wilderness.
 

Hunt_the_West

Active Member
Messages
321
It's a push...all the residents that would have hunted general if they didn't draw a lq tag won't be there. Plus spreading another 1500 or so NRs out over the large number of areas...non-issue. If I have too I can always lose a vast majority of NR pressure by hunting designated wilderness.
Had to stick that knife in deep with the wilderness comment 😂 Just kidding Buzz, well kind of.
 

WapitiBob

Long Time Member
Messages
4,753
Thanks. That explains it, but I guess I don't understand why all of these new general tags would go special? I would think only 40% would go special.

I guess the majority of residents are okay with having 1000s of more non-residents hunting general?
Regulation sets the nr draw order; landowner, special, regular. The quota balance is done after the regular draw.

Quota Available for Landowner Drawing:
1. Total Quota is obtained for each hunt area
2. Quota is split between Resident and Nonresident Share (84% NR; 16% RES)
....
6. Quota balance from Landowner Preference Point Draw and Landowner Random Drawing are combined to a new total quota available for each hunt area

Quota Available for Special Drawing:
7. Total Quota available after Landowner Drawings are Split for Special Draw and Regular Draw
40% (Round UP) quota to Special Drawing
60% (Round DOWN) quota to Regular Drawing

....
Quota Available for Regular Drawing:
11. New Quota balance is calculated for each hunt area
Original 60% for Nonresident Regular Drawing
Plus quota balance from the Nonresident Special Preference Point Drawing
Plus quota balance from the Nonresident Special Random Drawing
......

QUOTA PROCESSING—TO MEET THE 7,250 LICENSE LIMIT
15. Convert remaining quota balance remaining from the Regular Preference Point and Regular Random drawings to General up to the amount necessary to issue 7,250 licenses in total
16. Conduct 2nd pass drawing for unsuccessful Special license applicants
Quota remaining is made available to Regular license applicants
17. Conduct 2nd pass drawing for unsuccessful Regular license applicants
 

jims

Very Active Member
Messages
2,319
What amazes me is that Buzz talks like there are going to be so many additional tags issued to wyo res with 90/10. This is far from the truth. There likely won’t even be any changes in high demand elk units. Most of the high demand units don’t even offer nonres tags in the “random” draw. In the pref pt draw there is often only 1 nonres tag available in regular and 1 tag in the special. I can’t see how this will help wyo draw more high demand tags?

The notion that 90/10 is going to increase res draw odds...especially in high demand units is a bit nuts! I’ll continue to stick with my guns on this one! I’m not trying to tell wyo what to do...just trying to open some eyes and stating facts that will help wyo res draw tags more often!
 

grosventrehunter

Very Active Member
Messages
1,333
Hey jims how many points did it take you to draw 90 this year? Are you not concerned about the NR guy/gal who has been faithfully building points that you screwed by point sharing? Just curious.....and you say us residents are greedy.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,675
What amazes me is that Buzz talks like there are going to be so many additional tags issued to wyo res with 90/10. This is far from the truth. There likely won’t even be any changes in high demand elk units. Most of the high demand units don’t even offer nonres tags in the “random” draw. In the pref pt draw there is often only 1 nonres tag available in regular and 1 tag in the special. I can’t see how this will help wyo draw more high demand tags?

The notion that 90/10 is going to increase res draw odds...especially in high demand units is a bit nuts! I’ll continue to stick with my guns on this one! I’m not trying to tell wyo what to do...just trying to open some eyes and stating facts that will help wyo res draw tags more often!
Since you like to ask questions...one for you jims.

Will increasing resident allocations of sheep tags from 75% to 90% mean more or less residents would be sheep hunting each year?

Will increasing resident allocations of moose tags from 80% to 90% mean more or less residents would be hunting moose each year.

...and lq deer, and lq pronghorn, and lq elk.

Well, I'll answer for you, several thousand residents per year would be hunting better units each year...FACT.
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
398
What amazes me is that Buzz talks like there are going to be so many additional tags issued to wyo res with 90/10. This is far from the truth. There likely won’t even be any changes in high demand elk units. Most of the high demand units don’t even offer nonres tags in the “random” draw. In the pref pt draw there is often only 1 nonres tag available in regular and 1 tag in the special. I can’t see how this will help wyo draw more high demand tags?

The notion that 90/10 is going to increase res draw odds...especially in high demand units is a bit nuts! I’ll continue to stick with my guns on this one! I’m not trying to tell wyo what to do...just trying to open some eyes and stating facts that will help wyo res draw tags more often!
You miss the main point.
Every single tag a resident draws by increasing tags from the 90-10 split is increasing that individual Residents opportunity by 100%. Imagine the happiness and joy that young Wyoming resident hunter will now feel when he receives a Wyoming sheep tag that he never would have received with the far far too generous system of 25% of those tags going to non residents. Your supposed facts are fake news, we know what the reality is.
 

PLK

Active Member
Messages
249
I would still like to see sheep, mountain goat and moose changed to once in a lifetime. There are currently approximately 14,000 residents with preference points for sheep and 11,000 NR with preference points for sheep. With only a total of 250 tags per year, that’s a lot of hunters that are never going to draw a sheep tag no matter what the allocation is. Why allow some lucky individuals to draw more than once. At $7 for a resident preference point the WGF won’t be losing much revenue. Also, I assume that most NR that draw a sheep tag are probably glad to be out of the preference point game.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,675
I think mountain goat is already once in a lifetime. I'm pretty neutral on sheep and moose being one harvest a lifetime...
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
398
I would still like to see sheep, mountain goat and moose changed to once in a lifetime. There are currently approximately 14,000 residents with preference points for sheep and 11,000 NR with preference points for sheep. With only a total of 250 tags per year, that’s a lot of hunters that are never going to draw a sheep tag no matter what the allocation is. Why allow some lucky individuals to draw more than once. At $7 for a resident preference point the WGF won’t be losing much revenue. Also, I assume that most NR that draw a sheep tag are probably glad to be out of the preference point game.
Again......Trying to project your wants on how we as Wyoming residents allocate permits. You sure like to ”Project” your desires on how we have developed the system in Wyoming. Projectionism and Ignorance won’t hold up here. If we can get the moose herd stabilised with wolf and grizzly controls we could likely see 1000 permits issued annually. Using your numbers, that is only 11 years on average to comb through a preference point system for moose. The mountain goat already has a “OIL” restriction.. Go try and limit Alaska residents to “OIL” on moose just because you as a non-resident don’t like it that they get to harvest more than one moose in their lifetimes. Ain’t gonna happen, nor is there any good reason for it as the odds generally take care of it anyways.
 

PLK

Active Member
Messages
249
high fast flyer,

I‘m confused as to why you are sure that I’m a non-resident. I live in Wyoming.

That young hunter that you refer to drawing the sheep tag better be lucky since he/she is going to have to draw in the random drawing.
 

grosventrehunter

Very Active Member
Messages
1,333
I
I would still like to see sheep, mountain goat and moose changed to once in a lifetime. There are currently approximately 14,000 residents with preference points for sheep and 11,000 NR with preference points for sheep. With only a total of 250 tags per year, that’s a lot of hunters that are never going to draw a sheep tag no matter what the allocation is. Why allow some lucky individuals to draw more than once. At $7 for a resident preference point the WGF won’t be losing much revenue. Also, I assume that most NR that draw a sheep tag are probably glad to be out of the preference point game.
Would not be upset if this happened.
 

PLK

Active Member
Messages
249
There are 22,000 residents with preference points for moose. The preference point numbers I listed above were for sheep.So using your numbers that is “only” 22 years to comb through the resident preference points for moose. With wolves most likely expanding throughout Wyoming and Colorado proposing to introduce wolves; seems unlikely that tag numbers will increase anytime soon.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,675
high fast flyer,

I‘m confused as to why you are sure that I’m a non-resident. I live in Wyoming.

That young hunter that you refer to drawing the sheep tag better be lucky since he/she is going to have to draw in the random drawing.
Another 15% of total sheep tags means more random sheep tags drawn by residents...young, old, or somewhere in-between...yes?
 

PLK

Active Member
Messages
249
Exactly. But with 14,000 residents and approximately 50 tags in the random draw (25% of 225), the young hunter will need to be lucky because he/she might never draw in the preference point draw.
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
398
Exactly. But with 14,000 residents and approximately 50 tags in the random draw (25% of 225), the young hunter will need to be lucky because he/she might never draw in the preference point draw.
The key is increasing “Opportunity” for resident hunters. Every single tag a resident draws by increasing tags from the 90-10 split is increasing that individual Residents opportunity by 100%.
 

PLK

Active Member
Messages
249
I’d rather see someone draw in the random draw that has never drawn a sheep tag before. Simple as that.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,675
I’d rather see someone draw in the random draw that has never drawn a sheep tag before. Simple as that.
Me too...and why 90-10 makes sense. More total tags equals more random tags available to resident hunters. Glad to have you on board...
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
398
I’d rather see someone draw in the random draw that has never drawn a sheep tag before. Simple as that.
Why would you willingly want restrictions? The preference point system aids everyone better than the random draw as far more tags are issued under that part of the draw. In your own numbers you state we have 22,000 moose hunters. We could easily someday soon with proper management, biological advancements and wolf harvest get back to a 1000 moose tags per year. How about the cow moose tags and the ewe bighorn sheep permits, would those be once in a lifetime? We have had at least one year I know of back in the 1990s where you could get a cow moose tag as a 2nd choice. Trying to impose limitations and restrictions on ourselves seems obtuse at best and Ignorant of the potential resource at worst. What happens when all of those 22,000 moose hunters have drawn a moose tag in 25 years and very little recruitment of younger hunters? You want to just dump all those tags into the leftover or nonresident quota and take “Opportunity” away from what we always have historically managed for?
 

LivingTheDream

Active Member
Messages
165
Fine with me...as long as residents get 90% of the sheep, moose, goat, bison, grizzly bear tags...I could support the OIL harvest deal all day long.

Damn good deal.
Its really not a damn good deal in the long term. No one is really addressing the whole conservation aspect and how we improve the population to improve tag numbers. Moose populations keep crashing is the solution to do a 100% allocation to residents? Make it OIL? Sheep numbers are lower, why? The Wyoming Wild Sheep Foundation is awesome, how can we help their efforts to increase sheep population. Is it disease or grazing rights? To say there is less opportunity now and residents have the right to demand more tags (which they do) is not really addressing why is there less opportunity. You can say that giving 10 to 15% more tags increases opportunity for resident hunters, this is a fact, but if there is a sheep die off or wolves keep destroying moose, then what?

This whole thread started on revenue. You have admitted the species you mentioned in your post the state would lose revenue (I know we did the math on elk and somehow that works out ok). And if the 90/10 causes less NR to buy points doesn't that have a ripple effect? Wouldn't others stop buying deer, elk, antelope to go along with it. I feel like we can look at just the license cost, there is probably 3 or 4 sets of correlated date we need to look at.

These discussions based on nonresident/resident quota are a bit counterproductive to the longterm sustainability of our lifestyle.
 

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
398
Its really not a damn good deal in the long term. No one is really addressing the whole conservation aspect and how we improve the population to improve tag numbers. Moose populations keep crashing is the solution to do a 100% allocation to residents? Make it OIL? Sheep numbers are lower, why? The Wyoming Wild Sheep Foundation is awesome, how can we help their efforts to increase sheep population. Is it disease or grazing rights? To say there is less opportunity now and residents have the right to demand more tags (which they do) is not really addressing why is there less opportunity. You can say that giving 10 to 15% more tags increases opportunity for resident hunters, this is a fact, but if there is a sheep die off or wolves keep destroying moose, then what?

This whole thread started on revenue. You have admitted the species you mentioned in your post the state would lose revenue (I know we did the math on elk and somehow that works out ok). And if the 90/10 causes less NR to buy points doesn't that have a ripple effect? Wouldn't others stop buying deer, elk, antelope to go along with it. I feel like we can look at just the license cost, there is probably 3 or 4 sets of correlated date we need to look at.

These discussions based on nonresident/resident quota are a bit counterproductive to the longterm sustainability of our lifestyle.
That is multiple topics which the scope of this thread could never begin to address. We have discussed over and over the Wolves, grizzlies, habitat, winter range, oil and gas development, increasing elk on Mule deer affects, drought, pneumonia, decreasing game in every species but elk etc. etc. etc., in other threads, I suggest you start your own thread if you want to bring those multiple and widespread topics into the discussion.
 
Last edited:

LivingTheDream

Active Member
Messages
165
That is multiple topics which the scope of this thread could never begin to address. We have discussed over and over the Wolves, grizzlies, habitat, winter range, oil and gas development, increasing elk on Mule deer affects, drought, pneumonia, decreasing game in every species but elk etc. etc. etc., in other threads, I suggest you start your own thread if you want to bring those multiple and widespread topics into the discussion.
I guess that was my point that creating opportunity is more complex of an issue than shifting tags around.
 

PLK

Active Member
Messages
249
Highfastflyer,
You seem to imply that Wyoming is not properly managing the sheep and moose population. Yet then you state, “You want to just dump all those tags into the leftover or nonresident quota and take “Opportunity” away from what we always have historically managed for?” Historical management doesn’t seem to be working as shown by the decreasing populations and tag numbers.

There are approximately 3500 Wyoming residents with 1 preference point for moose. I don’t think there ever will be leftover moose tags. But if the moose and sheep populations rebound to historically high numbers, the Wy Game and Fish could always remove the OIL regulation. In the interim, allow some folks who have never had the opportunity to hunt sheep or moose a better chance by removing people from the draw that had their opportunity. I don’t think my OIL opinion is either obtuse or ignorant; if you want to have better young hunter recruitment then give them a better chance to draw.

How many sheep and/or moose tags have you drawn so far in Wyoming? For the record, I haven’t drawn any.
 

jims

Very Active Member
Messages
2,319
So what I hear from several Wyo res on this post is....SCREW nonres! This happened in New Mexico several years ago with disregard to public land nonres hunters. In fact, currently there are more tags set aside for outfitters than public OYO hunters!

With that said.....Buzz, what does your buddy Randy Newberg think of your quest? You advertised on his posts several years ago how you are so much in favor of battling it out for OYO pubic land nonres hunters? What ever happened to that sediment? Maybe I should forward this post on Randy's website so they can see the true Buzz?

I'm sure outfitters have a pretty big plan for what happens with 90/10? It's obviously their livelihood at stake? If 90/10 ever happens I wonder if outfitters will try to continue down this same road as NM and slice a chunk of public tags to set aside for themselves? You are obviously stirring the pot with outfitters and it's possible they could try something drastic to gain tags back for their clients? Where does this non-sense end?

It's now obvious that it's Buzz, JM, and a couple other's quest to take as many tags as possible from nonres. There are several ways to improve draw odds for Wyo res but those aren't even considered. Several that quickly come to mind are: waiting period, predator control, improving wildlife habitat, creating additional tags that currently aren't available, etc.

Whether it means taking a couple tags away from nonres sheep and moose hunters that have invested a lifetime and thousands of $ to apply....it doesn't matter to them in their quest for more tags for Wyo res! I guess we'll see if this same selfish sediment and attitude holds true at the state level. Wyo nonres are pretty big stake-holders in all of this if you ask me!

The tag allotment deal is a convoluted mess. It's definitely a lot more complex and complicated than mentioned. It's hard to say what will actually happen with applicants and tags if 90/10 ever happens. We aren't talking about a drop in a bucket in regard to potential revenue losses with this change. There is no question that this is a difficult time financially in Wyo for revenue and we are talking about millions of $ in lost revenue with this plan. According to Buzz and JM it really doesn't matter and will be simple shifting tags around and finding another pool of $ to rob. They have never explained where this lost revenue will come from and it's hard to say what will happen with MAJOR shifts in tags? All they have ever stated is it will be easy finding $! Seems like a big fallacy in their quest? My guess is that this is where their mighty plan is destined to fail before it even is started!

Plain and simple, the WG&F and small town economies would be in trouble without Wyo nonresidents! It's getting pretty ugly on this post. Buzz and JM are showing their true colors! It's obvious that Buzz, JM, a Wyo senator, and a couple other Wyo res could care less about nonres!

Hopefully nothing happens to Wyo like happened in New Mexico! As a faint reminder....Colo offers 35% of their deer, elk, and antelope tags to nonres. Oh yah, Colo also offers unlimited OTC elk tag hunters to nonres! It sure does wonders to our economy and is as nonres friendly as it gets. Nonres OYO/DIY hunters are always welcome in Colo!

It will be interesting to see what Wyo outfitters association come up with this year to battle 90/10. They've won the battle in the past and I'm sure they are fired up and ready to go! Let the battle begin!
 
Last edited:

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
398
Highfastflyer,
You seem to imply that Wyoming is not properly managing the sheep and moose population. Yet then you state, “You want to just dump all those tags into the leftover or nonresident quota and take “Opportunity” away from what we always have historically managed for?” Historical management doesn’t seem to be working as shown by the decreasing populations and tag numbers.

There are approximately 3500 Wyoming residents with 1 preference point for moose. I don’t think there ever will be leftover moose tags. But if the moose and sheep populations rebound to historically high numbers, the Wy Game and Fish could always remove the OIL regulation. In the interim, allow some folks who have never had the opportunity to hunt sheep or moose a better chance by removing people from the draw that had their opportunity. I don’t think my OIL opinion is either obtuse or ignorant; if you want to have better young hunter recruitment then give them a better chance to draw.

How many sheep and/or moose tags have you drawn so far in Wyoming? For the record, I haven’t drawn any.
If we go OIL it will always stay that way. Never gonna happen to get it back if we get rid of it now. When was the last time seasons extended into November for General License deer in Western Wyoming or when was the last time an area went limited quota then went back to General a license again. If we give up on our current historical way of managing resident preference points and go OIL then we will be stuck with that forever. The draw basically takes care of a OIL anyways. I have killed a bighorn sheep and likely will just try for the bighorn ewe tags again if I can draw one. If we change this system I would not even be able to do that. Who is going to waste their OIL on a ewe tag or a cow moose? There might be a few but when they have tagged out then these tags willl get dumped in the leftover pool or go to non residents. You are trying to take away “Opportunity” and I can’t believe anyone would willingly want to restrict hunter opportunity, it is very Obtuse to do so. The vast majority of the tags drawn are done so with the preference point part of the draw, this is the main reason we went to a preference point system in the first place. My grandfather drew 3 sheep tags in the 1960s as it was an all random draw. If we go OIL you just took away a lot of resident opportunity that will never come back. If you stick with the preference point system and you have 50 years of Wyoming residency just by that standard of the tags allocated the past 50 years, you should be on your 2nd moose and have harvested a bighorn sheep. Why don’t we Just go OIL for elk and deer, that way everyone will have a chance to take a good deer and elk, why stop at the moose, sheep and goats, just initiate that change now and all those young hunters will be so happy, yet nobody will be left around to hunt long term.
 
Last edited:

highfastflyer

Active Member
Messages
398
@jims. “It will be interesting to see what Wyo outfitters association come up with this year to battle 90/10.”

Maybe they will carve out of that 10% that half will be outfitter tags. Just like New Mexico or Nevada. Wyoming has no CWMU on big ranches and those have become quite popular in states like Utah and Colorado though they would need to be fixed and managed at a higher level than those states do if we ever get one of those systems.
 

PLK

Active Member
Messages
249
You have covered quite a few topics in your last post.

General license deer in November in western Wyoming - you can’t be serious that you think this ever will or should happen again? I personally feel that Regions G and H should not be open to every resident deer hunter every year. I know you will disagree.

So make the resident OIL for sheep and moose applicable for rams and bulls only. Are you really concerned that a few ewes and cow moose could get dumped in the leftover pool or go to non-residents? The OIL regulation would not be retroactive and therefore you would not be affected. When mountain goat went OIL the WGF simply picked a date and went forward from there.

Your comments concerning OIL for deer and elk; they truly are obtuse!!

You are so dead set against any changes that affect resident opportunity but you have no problem with any changes that affect non-resident opportunity. Screw the non-resident that has been in the points game for 15+ years! Raise the non-resident prices even higher across the board for all tags! They’ll keep paying! The state owns the wildlife; why should NRs even be allowed to hunt here at all. Crush the outfitters; nobody ever promised them anything either. Now I’m being obtuse and ignorant. Or perhaps you agree with the last paragraph.
 

nripepi

Very Active Member
Messages
1,545
Also, nr do not fund the majority of the dept budget. Nr fund the majority of license sales but 75% of 60% isn’t 50% of the total.
Total Budget: $128.9 million
1. Non-Res License Sales and Preference Points: $43.5 million
2. Res License Sales: $9.6 million
3. Wildlife Trust CORPUS: $32.2 million
4. Federal Aid and Grants: $17.8 million

1 + 4 = 47.5%

I am not exactly sure how CORPUS works, but it seems to be tied to the Wyoming Game and Fish Wildlife Trust Fund that seems to get it's income from conservation stamp revenue and other G&F product sales and it uses interest annually to fund wildlife projects. I am guessing a decent portion of this money is from non-residents, but I have no idea how to figure that out. Is 25% a good guess, could it be higher than that?

1 + 4 + 0.25x32.2 = 53.8%

I think one can safely say that non-residents and federal programs fund over 50% of the G&F budget. Once again, this just is what it is and may not effect anyone's decision on going to 90/10 and maybe the money will just keep coming from non-residents and federal programs.

Maybe we have not hit that threshold of cost vs. benefit yet. I am pretty sure I have heard from many on this thread that they no longer apply in New Mexico or Oregon and other states because of the changes and we know that the Moose preference points bought by non-residents have decreased and sheep will likely follow with the new rule to eliminate the requirement to buy a point to apply for a random tag. I chose to buy my 20th moose and sheep point this year, but did not buy one for my son because of the cost and chance of drawing in the future and once I draw it would be foolish to try and get back in that game. Everyone has a limit, it is just everyone's limit is different and the benefit changes for each person.
 

ss13

Active Member
Messages
265
You could also increase tag numbers by getting rid of the archery permit and adding an archery only season with separate tags. This would increase opportunity, increase revenue and tags available to both resident and non resident alike. It would also help slow point creep for non residents as it would be another option to choose. Many states offer this type of tag for all species, not just elk.

These low success odds hunts would add quite a bit of cash, while offering more opportunity. Just a thought.
 

jm77

Very Active Member
Messages
1,993
You could also increase tag numbers by getting rid of the archery permit and adding an archery only season with separate tags. This would increase opportunity, increase revenue and tags available to both resident and non resident alike. It would also help slow point creep for non residents as it would be another option to choose. Many states offer this type of tag for all species, not just elk.

These low success odds hunts would add quite a bit of cash, while offering more opportunity. Just a thought.
So where do the extra animals come from for these additional archery hunters?
 

wytex

Active Member
Messages
662
You could also increase tag numbers by getting rid of the archery permit and adding an archery only season with separate tags. This would increase opportunity, increase revenue and tags available to both resident and non resident alike. It would also help slow point creep for non residents as it would be another option to choose. Many states offer this type of tag for all species, not just elk.

These low success odds hunts would add quite a bit of cash, while offering more opportunity. Just a thought.
For NR only maybe . Residents do not want to choose our season.
 

ss13

Active Member
Messages
265
So where do the extra animals come from for these additional archery hunters?

Come on, a little critical thinking.... I know your smarter than that. Your just trying to be a ass hat.

If the archery permits were eliminated, those hunters wouldn’t kill any animals right? Therefore, if the state implemented archery only tags, such as with some elk areas, there would be extra animals to kill. What’s the average success rate on a archery deer hunt? 10-15%. So, would 100-500 archery only tags really hurt a general area? Nope.
 

ss13

Active Member
Messages
265
For NR only maybe . Residents do not want to choose our season.

Well, just providing a option to add extra tags into the pool. Seems a bit ridiculous to complain about the number of tags available and draw odds, but refuse to shorten a season by 2 weeks to create addition tags for a different weapon. It wouldn’t need to be as extreme as New Mexico or Colorado with 1 week seasons. Again, options no one seems to want to explore.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,675
So what I hear from several Wyo res on this post is....SCREW nonres! This happened in New Mexico several years ago with disregard to public land nonres hunters. In fact, currently there are more tags set aside for outfitters than public OYO hunters!

With that said.....Buzz, what does your buddy Randy Newberg think of your quest? You advertised on his posts several years ago how you are so much in favor of battling it out for OYO pubic land nonres hunters? What ever happened to that sediment? Maybe I should forward this post on Randy's website so they can see the true Buzz?

I'm sure outfitters have a pretty big plan for what happens with 90/10? It's obviously their livelihood at stake? If 90/10 ever happens I wonder if outfitters will try to continue down this same road as NM and slice a chunk of public tags to set aside for themselves? You are obviously stirring the pot with outfitters and it's possible they could try something drastic to gain tags back for their clients? Where does this non-sense end?

It's now obvious that it's Buzz, JM, and a couple other's quest to take as many tags as possible from nonres. There are several ways to improve draw odds for Wyo res but those aren't even considered. Several that quickly come to mind are: waiting period, predator control, improving wildlife habitat, creating additional tags that currently aren't available, etc.

Whether it means taking a couple tags away from nonres sheep and moose hunters that have invested a lifetime and thousands of $ to apply....it doesn't matter to them in their quest for more tags for Wyo res! I guess we'll see if this same selfish sediment and attitude holds true at the state level. Wyo nonres are pretty big stake-holders in all of this if you ask me!

The tag allotment deal is a convoluted mess. It's definitely a lot more complex and complicated than mentioned. It's hard to say what will actually happen with applicants and tags if 90/10 ever happens. We aren't talking about a drop in a bucket in regard to potential revenue losses with this change. There is no question that this is a difficult time financially in Wyo for revenue and we are talking about millions of $ in lost revenue with this plan. According to Buzz and JM it really doesn't matter and will be simple shifting tags around and finding another pool of $ to rob. They have never explained where this lost revenue will come from and it's hard to say what will happen with MAJOR shifts in tags? All they have ever stated is it will be easy finding $! Seems like a big fallacy in their quest? My guess is that this is where their mighty plan is destined to fail before it even is started!

Plain and simple, the WG&F and small town economies would be in trouble without Wyo nonresidents! It's getting pretty ugly on this post. Buzz and JM are showing their true colors! It's obvious that Buzz, JM, a Wyo senator, and a couple other Wyo res could care less about nonres!

Hopefully nothing happens to Wyo like happened in New Mexico! As a faint reminder....Colo offers 35% of their deer, elk, and antelope tags to nonres. Oh yah, Colo also offers unlimited OTC elk tag hunters to nonres! It sure does wonders to our economy and is as nonres friendly as it gets. Nonres OYO/DIY hunters are always welcome in Colo!

It will be interesting to see what Wyo outfitters association come up with this year to battle 90/10. They've won the battle in the past and I'm sure they are fired up and ready to go! Let the battle begin!
Couple things jims.

1. If you want to post this thread over on Randy's board...go for it. I have no problem with it and I know Randy wouldn't either.

2. I know what Randy thinks of this thread as I talked with him just yesterday about it. I wont, and don't speak for others. If he feels its worthwhile he will comment.

3. Theres more than myself, jm77, and one wyoming senator and "a few others" that feel that Residents should have more opportunity here. Its gaining momentum as tag demand has increased. I've also heard many of the Game and Fish Commission give testimony that resident opportunity needs to increase across the board. I've talked directly with them about it and not once have I ever heard a single one say that residents DONT need more opportunity at tags. Do you really think this new task force would announce tag allocations as one of their priorities if "only a few" residents thought this is important? Of course not, the time has come to readjust the NR tag allocations and they will change.

4. You have no merit when you claim that Wyoming will lose millions in revenue. Just because you CLAIM it will happen, you have no proof. Further, if Wyoming is still giving out as many tags as they are now, just distributed differently, doesnt mean there will be a single cent in lost revenue. Provide proof or its just another of your many baseless claims. When you provide the proof that there will be lost revenue, I'll let you know a plan to recover it. But, everyone with a single firing brain cell knows that 90-10 isnt going to cause a loss of revenue for anyone, GF, local economies, or anywhere else.

You need to come up with some new material...
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,675
Come on, a little critical thinking.... I know your smarter than that. Your just trying to be a ass hat.

If the archery permits were eliminated, those hunters wouldn’t kill any animals right? Therefore, if the state implemented archery only tags, such as with some elk areas, there would be extra animals to kill. What’s the average success rate on a archery deer hunt? 10-15%. So, would 100-500 archery only tags really hurt a general area? Nope.
You really arent good at math...at all.

Every additional animal you kill, whether with an arrow, bullet, or vehicle has an impact on the resource.

Wyoming GF has created a great product because they don't try to wring every last dollar or every last animal from our herds for someone to run a bullet or arrow through. One of the main reasons that Wyoming is selling out all their licenses every year is because of the quality we have. And why you and Sebastian are crying because those doing a vast majority of the heavy lifting creating this great resource (Residents) want to increase our allotment of tags to 90%.

If you're such a fan of the system you're bragging about, go hunt Colorado...right up your alley.

Wyoming is the envy of the West when it comes to hunting and again, exactly why you're throwing a fit about 90-10.
 

nripepi

Very Active Member
Messages
1,545
4. You have no merit when you claim that Wyoming will lose millions in revenue. Just because you CLAIM it will happen, you have no proof. Further, if Wyoming is still giving out as many tags as they are now, just distributed differently, doesnt mean there will be a single cent in lost revenue. Provide proof or its just another of your many baseless claims. When you provide the proof that there will be lost revenue, I'll let you know a plan to recover it. But, everyone with a single firing brain cell knows that 90-10 isnt going to cause a loss of revenue for anyone, GF, local economies, or anywhere else.
Do you have proof they won't lose millions in revenue?

Let's take antelope as an example:

Non-resident Fees: $6,658,986
Resident Fees: $916,435

There were 33,885 non-resident antelope licenses bought in 2019 @ $196 per license on average.

There were 31,094 resident licenses bought at $29 per license on average.

Right now, non-residents are receiving 52% of the licenses. If that number would decrease to 10% and the $ per license stayed the same, that equals $5,382,036 in lost revenue which is on the max side.

I agree that it would be less than $5.3 million in lost revenue, but how much less? No one knows, but if you don't think it would be in the millions then I think you are not being realistic here. There are less and less leftover tags available compared to 10 years ago, to think there will be a bunch more in the future is naive.

On top of that, if the benefit of preference points decreases, then the demand for those points decrease and less people will buy them. Basic supply and demand economics, correct? So the amount of money brought in for antelope preference points would decrease vs. what would have happened if 90/10 different occur. Right now, non-resident antelope points bring in $2.17 million, more than double what residents pay for licenses.

NR DIY guys should be vocal about this issue, but we have no voice. WYOGA may be the best we have, but obviously they would stab us in the back if it benefited them (can't blame them).

I think we all understand that residents want more opportunity, why not just take 100% of the tags then? Why not? Because G&F would go broke, so money is an issue that should be discussed. It is not as simple as saying we will just raise the money, this is a big deal and I completely understand residents fighting for more opportunity.
 

wytex

Active Member
Messages
662
Well, just providing a option to add extra tags into the pool. Seems a bit ridiculous to complain about the number of tags available and draw odds, but refuse to shorten a season by 2 weeks to create addition tags for a different weapon. It wouldn’t need to be as extreme as New Mexico or Colorado with 1 week seasons. Again, options no one seems to want to explore.
That is the issue, "additional tags". We don't need additional tags put onto the draw, meaning additional animals taken. Residents want a bigger share of the license available, not more licenses added to the total quota in both draws.
We want to archery and rifle seasons to fill our licenses. Adding those archery only licenses is adding pressure and increased harvest in the area unless you decrease the rifle allocation. No thank you.
 

wytex

Active Member
Messages
662
Do you have proof they won't lose millions in revenue?

Let's take antelope as an example:

Non-resident Fees: $6,658,986
Resident Fees: $916,435

There were 33,885 non-resident antelope licenses bought in 2019 @ $196 per license on average.

There were 31,094 resident licenses bought at $29 per license on average.

Right now, non-residents are receiving 52% of the licenses. If that number would decrease to 10% and the $ per license stayed the same, that equals $5,382,036 in lost revenue which is on the max side.

I agree that it would be less than $5.3 million in lost revenue, but how much less? No one knows, but if you don't think it would be in the millions then I think you are not being realistic here. There are less and less leftover tags available compared to 10 years ago, to think there will be a bunch more in the future is naive.

On top of that, if the benefit of preference points decreases, then the demand for those points decrease and less people will buy them. Basic supply and demand economics, correct? So the amount of money brought in for antelope preference points would decrease vs. what would have happened if 90/10 different occur. Right now, non-resident antelope points bring in $2.17 million, more than double what residents pay for licenses.

NR DIY guys should be vocal about this issue, but we have no voice. WYOGA may be the best we have, but obviously they would stab us in the back if it benefited them (can't blame them).

I think we all understand that residents want more opportunity, why not just take 100% of the tags then? Why not? Because G&F would go broke, so money is an issue that should be discussed. It is not as simple as saying we will just raise the money, this is a big deal and I completely understand residents fighting for more opportunity.

So under the way the draw is conducted now, wouldn't those added, under subscribed resident licenses go right back into the NR draw and hence produce that same revenue ? You would likely just loose licenses in the better draw areas but add some draw opportunities in harder access, lesser quality areas.
 

jm77

Very Active Member
Messages
1,993
Do you have proof they won't lose millions in revenue?

Let's take antelope as an example:

Non-resident Fees: $6,658,986
Resident Fees: $916,435

There were 33,885 non-resident antelope licenses bought in 2019 @ $196 per license on average.

There were 31,094 resident licenses bought at $29 per license on average.

Right now, non-residents are receiving 52% of the licenses. If that number would decrease to 10% and the $ per license stayed the same, that equals $5,382,036 in lost revenue which is on the max side.

I agree that it would be less than $5.3 million in lost revenue, but how much less? No one knows, but if you don't think it would be in the millions then I think you are not being realistic here. There are less and less leftover tags available compared to 10 years ago, to think there will be a bunch more in the future is naive.

On top of that, if the benefit of preference points decreases, then the demand for those points decrease and less people will buy them. Basic supply and demand economics, correct? So the amount of money brought in for antelope preference points would decrease vs. what would have happened if 90/10 different occur. Right now, non-resident antelope points bring in $2.17 million, more than double what residents pay for licenses.

NR DIY guys should be vocal about this issue, but we have no voice. WYOGA may be the best we have, but obviously they would stab us in the back if it benefited them (can't blame them).

I think we all understand that residents want more opportunity, why not just take 100% of the tags then? Why not? Because G&F would go broke, so money is an issue that should be discussed. It is not as simple as saying we will just raise the money, this is a big deal and I completely understand residents fighting for more opportunity.
You apparently don't read all the posts. With 90/10 NR will still get 52% of the antelope tags, just different areas. 90/10 won't change the numbers of residents applying, just more residents in certain areas/less in other areas. Zero change in revenue.
 

wytex

Active Member
Messages
662
I will thank jims for pointing out that Colorado has a great alternative for NRs with their generous licenses allocations and OTC system.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
3,675
Do you have proof they won't lose millions in revenue?

Let's take antelope as an example:

Non-resident Fees: $6,658,986
Resident Fees: $916,435

There were 33,885 non-resident antelope licenses bought in 2019 @ $196 per license on average.

There were 31,094 resident licenses bought at $29 per license on average.

Right now, non-residents are receiving 52% of the licenses. If that number would decrease to 10% and the $ per license stayed the same, that equals $5,382,036 in lost revenue which is on the max side.

I agree that it would be less than $5.3 million in lost revenue, but how much less? No one knows, but if you don't think it would be in the millions then I think you are not being realistic here. There are less and less leftover tags available compared to 10 years ago, to think there will be a bunch more in the future is naive.

On top of that, if the benefit of preference points decreases, then the demand for those points decrease and less people will buy them. Basic supply and demand economics, correct? So the amount of money brought in for antelope preference points would decrease vs. what would have happened if 90/10 different occur. Right now, non-resident antelope points bring in $2.17 million, more than double what residents pay for licenses.

NR DIY guys should be vocal about this issue, but we have no voice. WYOGA may be the best we have, but obviously they would stab us in the back if it benefited them (can't blame them).

I think we all understand that residents want more opportunity, why not just take 100% of the tags then? Why not? Because G&F would go broke, so money is an issue that should be discussed. It is not as simple as saying we will just raise the money, this is a big deal and I completely understand residents fighting for more opportunity.
How would pronghorn licenses decrease? They wouldnt...all it would be is a shift in WHERE residents and non residents would hunt.

For example, I always draw a buck pronghorn tag in Wyoming, always. I always buy an additional buck tag as well. So, if I draw more often in the areas I prefer instead of my second choice, that frees up a tag for a NR to draw the tag I wouldnt have. Further, if the demand keeps increasing, a NR will get my additional buck tag as well.

That means no revenue lost.

Also your theory about points is dead wrong. Assuming that NR's will lose some tags under 90-10 (no way in hell that will happen) that will INCREASE demand for points. There are multiple areas I could go down to the local walmart and buy a leftover tag for a buck as a R or NR, that now take 1-4 points to draw.

Meaning, if NR's want to hunt pronghorn every year or two even in some of the easier areas...they will need points to do it. What other options are there for NR's to draw 52% of any other states pronghorn tags...go ahead, throw your sucker in the dirt and apply elsewhere with more opportunity at a pronghorn. I apply for NV, UT, AZ, for pronghorn and have for over 20 years...never drawn,. I applied in MT and NM in the past, drew once as a NR in NM.

You need to actually do some thinking before you post...
 

ralphie

Active Member
Messages
116
I’m another resident that wants to see the 90/10 split. And while the non residents are in a tail spin over that I’ll also contact legislators and who ever else to keep the wilderness rule. Yeah the outfitters wanted it for welfare and it has nothing to do with safety, but it’s a nice perk for residents. Let the selfish accusations fly. Maybe I’ll start to care when other Western states treat me just like their residents.
 

PLK

Active Member
Messages
249
As I read the various posts on this thread, Wyoming should probably add a mandatory NR hunting license fee for $100+ that must be purchased before a NR can enter any big game draws. Arizona has one, Colorado has one, Idaho has one. Where else are NRs going to go to hunt (especially deer and antelope). Obviously demand is still greater than supply and Wyoming is leaving money on the table.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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.

French Creek Outfitters

Quality mule deer, antelope and whitetail hunts on a 100k acre ranch.

J & J Outfitters

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

Twisted Horn Outfitters

Offering public land mule deer, antelope and sheep hunts in multiple units and regions.


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses
Top Bottom