Wyoming non res tag quota decrease

There will be a bill in the Legislature to reduce NR quotas.

Budget session, so needs 2/3 vote to pass, doubtful that will happen.

Outfitters are worried and asked groups that attended a recent round table to oppose it. They handed out some worksheets regarding revenue loss to GF, but the numbers were wrong. Of course, I had to question their numbers and they had no answers. Moving to a 90-10 situation would not result in much of a loss in revenue like was claimed with the faulty data they provided.

The only thing that I would say that is different this time, compared to other years, there's money, effort, and serious lobbying going on. Lots of information, numbers, etc. are likely to be presented. Plus, I think the group pushing this is not going away and they're in it for the long haul.

As tags and opportunities dry up in surrounding states, and things get tighter in Wyoming, I expect there to be more and more pressure applied to give Residents more opportunity.

I don't find it unreasonable for Residents of Wyoming wanting to treat NR's here, like they are treated as NR's in every other Western State. I think an adjustment is inevitable, but I would be shocked if it happened this year.

I wouldn't be concerned as a NR in the short term, but long term I think change is in the air.
 
Yes, Wyoming residents Deserve it. As much as I would hate to see it happen. The Wilderness bill is where Wyoming does not treat non-residents how other states do. If this passes in a handful of years and they got rid of the Wilderness bill, then Outfitters would pretty much be out of a job. I hate to see somebody out of a job, but the Wilderness bill is a joke.

Thanks Buzz!
 
I ran the numbers with E/D/A a cpl years ago and it results in a revenue increase. Bump the NR Elk quota to about 8,500 and the revenue gain would be hard to ignore. Not that I want to see it but a 90/10 split and 8,500 Elk quota would be a reasonable compromise.
 
I’m sure they will factor in lost revenue to WY due to the reduced number out-of-state visitors.
 
I’m sure they will factor in lost revenue to WY due to the reduced number out-of-state visitors.

Except there wont be loss in revenue or NR hunters, if we go 90-10 on LQ tags.

NR's are guaranteed 7,250 full price elk tags by statute, a vast majority of NR deer tags are region tags, and NR's already get and will continue to get over 50% of the pronghorn tags. Where is this great loss of revenue you're talking about if the LQ split went 90-10?

It will shift some things around, but total revenue to GF and tag numbers going to NR's will be largely the same.
 
Yes, Wyoming residents Deserve it. As much as I would hate to see it happen. The Wilderness bill is where Wyoming does not treat non-residents how other states do. If this passes in a handful of years and they got rid of the Wilderness bill, then Outfitters would pretty much be out of a job. I hate to see somebody out of a job, but the Wilderness bill is a joke.

Thanks Buzz!

I wouldnt mind seeing some outfitters be out of jobs in Wyoming....
 
Residents should have the best of every aspect in Wyoming hunting and fishing.
The economy and culture is geared around “ outdoors “ .”in general”. given populations per square mile . More than any other western state per capita, however if you wanna play the game as a non-res pay the price...

I’m a non- res, up the fees considerably... quotas whatever...

Every State has “small or bigger perks for residents “, thus implementing different obstacles for non-residents to jump..
It’s happening and we better get used to it....
 
While I hate the wilderness law in WY as much as the next guy I doubt it getting rid of it will put any outfitters out of business. Most of their clients are not DIY kind of guys. Some are of course but most are not.
 
In terms of quality and quantity, the state of Wyoming already provides its residents the best resident hunting of any western state. How can a resident complain when they already have it so good?

I have been considering establishing residency in Wyoming for a few years because it is so good. I personally enjoy elk, deer, and antelope. If they make things even better for residents, I just might have to do it. Those of you who are avid hunters might want to consider the same.
 
Yes, Wyoming residents Deserve it. As much as I would hate to see it happen. The Wilderness bill is where Wyoming does not treat non-residents how other states do. If this passes in a handful of years and they got rid of the Wilderness bill, then Outfitters would pretty much be out of a job. I hate to see somebody out of a job, but the Wilderness bill is a joke.

Thanks Buzz!

I guided 5 years in the wyoming wilderness, of all the clients we took (30+/year), I can count on 1 hand the amount of those hunters who would have even considered undertaking that hunt on their own had the law not been present. There will always be the need for those outfitters wilderness law or not. It is far from easy to do a backcountry camp 15+miles in for the average horse hunting DIY hunter. . I think 90/10 for LQ is what it should be like most other states, and I do think its only a matter of time before change happens.
 
In terms of quality and quantity, the state of Wyoming already provides its residents the best resident hunting of any western state. How can a resident complain when they already have it so good?

I have been considering establishing residency in Wyoming for a few years because it is so good. I personally enjoy elk, deer, and antelope. If they make things even better for residents, I just might have to do it. Those of you who are avid hunters might want to consider the same.

When my son is 18.. I’m in the wind to WY!!
Can’t wait!
 
In terms of quality and quantity, the state of Wyoming already provides its residents the best resident hunting of any western state. How can a resident complain when they already have it so good?

I have been considering establishing residency in Wyoming for a few years because it is so good. I personally enjoy elk, deer, and antelope. If they make things even better for residents, I just might have to do it. Those of you who are avid hunters might want to consider the same.
You'll love winter.
 
I ran the numbers with E/D/A a cpl years ago and it results in a revenue increase. Bump the NR Elk quota to about 8,500 and the revenue gain would be hard to ignore. Not that I want to see it but a 90/10 split and 8,500 Elk quota would be a reasonable compromise.
Why would Wyo need to bump the elk quota to 8500? Compromise on what? Go to a 90/10 split on elk and NR will still get the same number of elk tags. I personally, even as a resident, don't advocate for changing the split for elk. But I would fight tooth and nail against increasing the NR quota.
 
WYOGA isn't going to just sit there and watch almost half of their NR LQ customers go away. Can a 90/10 split get passed without them? Maybe, but it would have a lot better chance if they were on board or the revenue increase from special gen elk licenses was too much to ignore.
 
Last edited:
WYOGA isn't going to just sit there and watch almost half of their NR LQ customers go away.
You would think that should be true but you might be surprised. After WYOGA made its last push to increase the quota I had a few after Comm meeting discussions with Outfitters in attendance. They were defiantly more interested in more Gen tags than they were in losing LQ tags. Two had no problem decreasing to 10% NR elk tags if it meant more gen tags. They felt they would sell the same amount of NR LQ tag hunts regardless given the percentages the go DIY vs guided and the increase in residents that are going guided due to pressure and grizzly issues. One Outfitter hadn't even thought of it. It wasn't until after i mentioned if he wanted more gen tags he should advocate for a reduction in the Res/NR split that his eyes lite up and he he sadi great idea. I suppose it has a great deal to due with where the Outfitters operate as well.
 
As a non-resident of course I don't like it, but I also don't think it's unfair. Residents should come first.

If it were to pass, would it impact this year's draw?
 
Nevermind. I found it. It looks like they're just revising the version that failed last year and keeping the same bill number. Interestingly, this version is even more restrictive than the version that failed last year. Wonder why they think this one will pass when the last one didn't.
 
I know Wyoming is going to do what they're going to do, but going to a 90:10 split barely improves resident draw odds. A more popular hunt might go from 4% to 7%. The odds are still going to be long.

I think we all like to complain about how hard the good hunts are to draw.
 
As a non resident, I hunt Wyoming almost every year with a large group of friends who are also non residents. Depending on what tags we draw, we often make more than one trip to Wyoming to hunt every year. It would be fair to say, that for every $1 each of us spends on a tag in Wyoming, we each conservatively spend an additional $4 while there. The vast majority of hunters we see in Wyoming are also out of state hunters. The hotels are filled with out of state hunters. The restaurants are filled with out of state hunters. Many of the owners of these small mom and pop businesses thanks us profusely for our patronage. I hunt Wyoming because I enjoy the experience and adventure. That said, if I didn’t draw because of reduced nonresident quotas, it wouldn’t break my heart. I often hunt in other western states also, and my experiences hunting in other states have been just as enjoyable. It would give me more time and resources to devote to exploring new destinations to hunt. My intuition is that the revenue generated by Wyoming F&G due to tag sales is a tiny fraction of the overall economic impact that hunting has on the great state of Wyoming. In addition, the money generated by the F&G does little to help the economies of the many small Wyoming towns who benefit tremendously from the nonresident dollars that flow in from September through November.
 
It would be great if the western states could get together. Seems we like to pound each other's NR. For the most part NM, AZ,UT,NV,ID,WY,MT,CO share borders and in many cases share animals. Be great if their were agreements on pricing and tag # for the NR for those states. Standardized prices, standardized tag #.

It may not be popular elsewhere, but those 8 states represent the vast majority of public land hunt oppurtunity.

Maybe its a pipe dream, but if we in Utah are giving up tags to NR, I feel better about them going to border state guys who may winter our deer/elk, or where their animals we winter.

As a Utahn I support what Wyoming is attempting.
 
It would be great if the western states could get together. Seems we like to pound each other's NR. For the most part NM, AZ,UT,NV,ID,WY,MT,CO share borders and in many cases share animals. Be great if their were agreements on pricing and tag # for the NR for those states. Standardized prices, standardized tag #.

It may not be popular elsewhere, but those 8 states represent the vast majority of public land hunt oppurtunity.

Maybe its a pipe dream, but if we in Utah are giving up tags to NR, I feel better about them going to border state guys who may winter our deer/elk, or where their animals we winter.

As a Utahn I support what Wyoming is attempting.

Hoss,
I couldn’t agree more! Hell I been thinking over the last decade even if G&F spread OTC/ general units with LQ/ limited entry- checker boarded throughout any given state..

Hunter congestion would be down and a different dynamic of hunting opportunity would be born after a few years.

You take that to the states you mentioned above and interagency working together, it would be a ridiculously successful.

Pipe dream, probably..., but a collective collaboration between western states would be a great thing for not only the herds , but the residents of every western state regardless if they wanna hunt...

Said to say too many “EGOS” in the way....
 
90/10 is too restrictive to NRs. To be fair, it is
“National Forest” and citizens who aren’t lucky enough live in one of the western states should be able to participate in our great pastime. While many times I have wished it was easier to draw tags in special areas, l believe it’s fair to share the wealth. Although Colorado is doing it for revenue, 35% max seems fair. 15% off the top to wealthy landowners that sell the tags is out of line.
 
If all you residents got your way and restricted the non-resident tags, how would you pay for your Game Department? I read the Wyoming Game Department is 85% funded by non-resident license fees.
 
Guess I missed the discount the western states guys get in whitetails? You know, all us guys getting to pay for tags, plus leases or guides.

The increase or cost in the West to DIY is nowhere near what you fellas hit us with if we go east.

None of us are going whitetail hunting for $650, $750, $850. It ain't happening.

I've yet to see one bill in any state east of Colorado for lowered prices for dudes from mtn states.
 
90/10 is too restrictive to NRs. To be fair, it is
“National Forest” and citizens who aren’t lucky enough live in one of the western states should be able to participate in our great pastime. While many times I have wished it was easier to draw tags in special areas, l believe it’s fair to share the wealth. Although Colorado is doing it for revenue, 35% max seems fair. 15% off the top to wealthy landowners that sell the tags is out of line.


Part of my point, several claimed going 90/10 would align them with the rest of the western states. Made me chuckle. Could you imagine the squealin if they were proposing to be more like their southern neighbor and go to a 65/35 split???
 
I wish one state would go all in and give zero tags to NR. I mean we could settle all the hyperbole on the issue and see if NR and their dollars matter, and see how many resident tags go unfilled when there isn’t out-of-state plates on pickups in the woods. Then, maybe then, we could focus on issues of wildlife management and the real challenge being those who want none of us to hunt.
 
In my eyes, Wyoming doesn’t have enough resident hunters to have much of a choice. To put it simply, there are not enough residents to even manage their herds. Let alone rely on the residents to fund their operations.
So trying to make a claim that other states set nonresident tag allocations around those numbers is irrelevant because those other states have populations of resident hunters that greatly exceed the number of resident hunters than Wyoming.
It’s like comparing apples to oranges
 
In my eyes, Wyoming doesn’t have enough resident hunters to have much of a choice. To put it simply, there are not enough residents to even manage their herds. Let alone rely on the residents to fund their operations.
So trying to make a claim that other states set nonresident tag allocations around those numbers is irrelevant because those other states have populations of resident hunters that greatly exceed the number of resident hunters than Wyoming.
It’s like comparing apples to oranges
Whatever residents don't buy are rolled into NR quotas and leftover draw. That's why nonresidents get around 50% of antelope tags. At 90/10 residents would get a better shot at the higher demand licenses.

Doesn't matter this year the bill is dead.
 
As JM mentioned in his post immediately above, the place where nonres are going to get hammered if Wyo goes to 90/10 is the high demand limited units. The nonres above that say that Wyo res deserve a higher chunk of tags may be in for a big eye-opener if this ever happens.

Wyo residents currently have a fantastic deal! They can hunt great general deer and elk units every year...and have relatively good to great draw odds for drawing limited tags.

If you think pref pt creep for nonres is bad right now wait until limited unit tags are cut in 1/2 of their current levels! Pt creep for nonres will go to pt leap....I can guarantee it! I'm sure nonres will get a rude awakening if this ever happens! I can guarantee if this ever passes that high demand deer, antelope, and elk tags will head towards the current flawed bighorn and moose pref pt system where the only nonres drawing tags are the guys with close to max pts!

Just a heads-up! Wyo nonres may want to lobby hard against any future legislation....especially if they want their kids to have the opportunity to draw great limited tags in Wyo!

As mentioned above, Colo is a lot more nonres-friendly than Wyo and the economy of the small town communities in Colo love nonres!
 
Last edited:
Guess I missed the discount the western states guys get in whitetails? You know, all us guys getting to pay for tags, plus leases or guides.

The increase or cost in the West to DIY is nowhere near what you fellas hit us with if we go east.

None of us are going whitetail hunting for $650, $750, $850. It ain't happening.

I've yet to see one bill in any state east of Colorado for lowered prices for dudes from mtn states.

Come to Virginia, you get 6 deer tags (3 buck and 3 doe) and 3 turkey tags when you buy your big game license...You can buy a bear tag too and be out the door for less than 300. Lots of public land throughout the state.
 
I wish one state would go all in and give zero tags to NR. I mean we could settle all the hyperbole on the issue and see if NR and their dollars matter, and see how many resident tags go unfilled when there isn’t out-of-state plates on pickups in the woods. Then, maybe then, we could focus on issues of wildlife management and the real challenge being those who want none of us to hunt.
Come to Virginia, you get 6 deer tags (3 buck and 3 doe) and 3 turkey tags when you buy your big game license...You can buy a bear tag too and be out the door for less than 300. Lots of public land throughout the state.


But you have to use a stick right? You guys aren't trustworthy enough for guns??
 
Whatever residents don't buy are rolled into NR quotas and leftover draw. That's why nonresidents get around 50% of antelope tags. At 90/10 residents would get a better shot at the higher demand licenses.

Doesn't matter this year the bill is dead.


It's dead already?
Good deal if so.
 
Call me crazy, but am I the only one that thinks a state should be able to do whatever it wants in a situation like this regardless of what the nonresidents might think about it?

I am a nonresident of Wyoming that does apply there each fall and I hope to draw some quality tags one day in that state. With that said, I still believe that the State of Wyoming has every right to kick out every single nonresident hunter if they created a bill and passed that bill. would it suck? yes it would! Would I blame them if they decided that is what they wanted? Not one bit.

We all feel entitled to other states animals when the reality is they give us permission to hunt their animals. If they want to take that permission away that is their right. I grew up in Arizona (no longer live there) where I got to be around giant elk my whole life. But drawing one of those tags is next to impossible most of the time, and giving 10% of those top tier premium elk tags to nonresidents each year only makes it tougher for a resident to get one of those tags. I would have loved to keep that 10% of tags in state if possible. AZ doesn't have crazy numbers of elk so it would be easy to justify keeping all of the tags in state. But being civil and allowing other states to come hunt does have some benefits.

I am glad states keep their hunting borders open to allow us all to do what we love all over the country, and I hope they continue to do so. But i also believe that they have the right to allow whomever they want to hunt their resource whether the out of staters like it or not. If the residents of a state were to vote on and pass something like that, it is their right no matter what it costs their economy.

again, I hope all the states will keep allowing out of state hunters because it allows me to hunt more and gives me something to do on the years I don't draw. I just believe we all feel entitled to something that doesn't belong to us and we forget that it's a privilege and not a right to hunt other states.
 
Yes, Wyoming residents Deserve it. As much as I would hate to see it happen. The Wilderness bill is where Wyoming does not treat non-residents how other states do. If this passes in a handful of years and they got rid of the Wilderness bill, then Outfitters would pretty much be out of a job. I hate to see somebody out of a job, but the Wilderness bill is a joke.

Thanks Buzz!

How would the outfitters be out of a job? All the other states outfitters are not out of a job. Wyomings outfitters wont be either. NOT AT ALL.
 
Sure, but to kill 3 quality bucks on public land would be tough. But they are there. Now if you wanted a bear on public land, I can pretty tell you exactly where to go.

But due to hunting pressure I mostly use a bow these days.
 
Call me crazy, but am I the only one that thinks a state should be able to do whatever it wants in a situation like this regardless of what the nonresidents might think about it?

I am a nonresident of Wyoming that does apply there each fall and I hope to draw some quality tags one day in that state. With that said, I still believe that the State of Wyoming has every right to kick out every single nonresident hunter if they created a bill and passed that bill. would it suck? yes it would! Would I blame them if they decided that is what they wanted? Not one bit.

We all feel entitled to other states animals when the reality is they give us permission to hunt their animals. If they want to take that permission away that is their right. I grew up in Arizona (no longer live there) where I got to be around giant elk my whole life. But drawing one of those tags is next to impossible most of the time, and giving 10% of those top tier premium elk tags to nonresidents each year only makes it tougher for a resident to get one of those tags. I would have loved to keep that 10% of tags in state if possible. AZ doesn't have crazy numbers of elk so it would be easy to justify keeping all of the tags in state. But being civil and allowing other states to come hunt does have some benefits.

I am glad states keep their hunting borders open to allow us all to do what we love all over the country, and I hope they continue to do so. But i also believe that they have the right to allow whomever they want to hunt their resource whether the out of staters like it or not. If the residents of a state were to vote on and pass something like that, it is their right no matter what it costs their economy.

again, I hope all the states will keep allowing out of state hunters because it allows me to hunt more and gives me something to do on the years I don't draw. I just believe we all feel entitled to something that doesn't belong to us and we forget that it's a privilege and not a right to hunt other states.
Of course it’s their state legislatures right to keep us from hunting if they want. I don’t think anyone is arguing that they don’t have the right. What I as a NR want is for them to NOT decrease or eliminate my hunting opportunity.
if you enjoy hunting Wyoming, I would think you’d feel the same.
 
Of course it’s their state legislatures right to keep us from hunting if they want. I don’t think anyone is arguing that they don’t have the right. What I as a NR want is for them to NOT decrease or eliminate my hunting opportunity.
if you enjoy hunting Wyoming, I would think you’d feel the same.
I do feel the same! I just think it is our responsibility as nonresidents to accept whatever they decide to do with their state. If they kicked out all nonresidents there would be an uprising of angry people that believe it is their right to hunt someone else's deer. When we all we should be worried about is enjoying it every chance we get and being good stewards of the opportunity while it lasts. If it goes away by the state's choosing I don't believe we have the right to tell them why we "deserve" to hunt their state, because we don't deserve it. We are lucky to get to hunt other states and I hope it continues. I just support them being able to kick me out if they would like to.
 
Here's an interesting article in regard to the significant revenue impacts nonresidents have on budgets and local economies.


According to the article the CPW collected $38 million from nonres and only $7.6 million for nonres deer and elk license sales.

Here's an interesting read about outdoor economic contributions in Colorado. The average non-resident big game hunter spends more money per day, and the economic output contributed by non-resident big game hunters makes up nearly 50 percent of the total. In other words, there are a chunk fewer nonres hunters but nonres are contributing more/hunter to local economies.


Here's another interesting article that goes beyond license sales. It tells the importance of hunters to local economies.

 
Last edited:
I do feel the same! I just think it is our responsibility as nonresidents to accept whatever they decide to do with their state. If they kicked out all nonresidents there would be an uprising of angry people that believe it is their right to hunt someone else's deer. When we all we should be worried about is enjoying it every chance we get and being good stewards of the opportunity while it lasts. If it goes away by the state's choosing I don't believe we have the right to tell them why we "deserve" to hunt their state, because we don't deserve it. We are lucky to get to hunt other states and I hope it continues. I just support them being able to kick me out if they would like to.

We have no choice, but to accept what any state decides regarding NR hunting, but we do have the right to comment about any proposed changes through proper channels too. How they handle our comments is up to them. They probably go in the toilet. :)

What I seem to notice is a lot of times a change has already been decided upon when they open it up to comments.
 
If nonres provide facts and valuable information I believe it is well received. I don't think many game departments want to shoot themselves in the foot financially or managing wildlife. Unfortunately many of the decisions made at the legislation level have a lot of different interest groups in mind.
 
I do feel the same! I just think it is our responsibility as nonresidents to accept whatever they decide to do with their state. If they kicked out all nonresidents there would be an uprising of angry people that believe it is their right to hunt someone else's deer. When we all we should be worried about is enjoying it every chance we get and being good stewards of the opportunity while it lasts. If it goes away by the state's choosing I don't believe we have the right to tell them why we "deserve" to hunt their state, because we don't deserve it. We are lucky to get to hunt other states and I hope it continues. I just support them being able to kick me out if they would like to.
The wildlife does not belong to the state of Wyoming. The federal government has given states the right to manage wildlife. The wildlife lives on National Forest and BLM land that belongs to ALL of us, as does the wildlife. States take federal funds to help manage the wildlife. I think we DO deserve to hunt that state.
There is no doubt however that Wyoming could get away with limiting NR's to 10%, but because I like to hunt Wyoming, I have to at least make an effort to try and maintain what opportunity is still there for me.
If we want to maintain your opportunity in Wyoming, we've got to support outfitters on some of their positions and contact Wyoming legislators when we feel the threat. The outfitters are not looking out for all NR's, but most of the clientele is still NR's, and therefore the work they do to save hunting opportunity for their clientele can benefit all NR's. In the end though, NR's just have to try and get involved in the process some to hopefully preserve what we have for as long as we can.
 
The wildlife does not belong to the state of Wyoming. The federal government has given states the right to manage wildlife. The wildlife lives on National Forest and BLM land that belongs to ALL of us, as does the wildlife. States take federal funds to help manage the wildlife. I think we DO deserve to hunt that state.
There is no doubt however that Wyoming could get away with limiting NR's to 10%, but because I like to hunt Wyoming, I have to at least make an effort to try and maintain what opportunity is still there for me.
If we want to maintain your opportunity in Wyoming, we've got to support outfitters on some of their positions and contact Wyoming legislators when we feel the threat. The outfitters are not looking out for all NR's, but most of the clientele is still NR's, and therefore the work they do to save hunting opportunity for their clientele can benefit all NR's. In the end though, NR's just have to try and get involved in the process some to hopefully preserve what we have for as long as we can.
I do hope the borders stay open. I really do. I only make the point that in the end they are gonna do what they want and whatever that is I will accept it because they have the right to vote on how they manage the animals in their state.

I honestly think they need to limit both resident and nonresident tags more than they currently do. G and H would be much better deer units than they already are if they went away from unlimited resident tag numbers and were more conservative with how many animals get killed each year. They do have a lot of deer but unlimited resident tags is not sustainable forever. I am no biologist but I think limiting those unlimited tags would be a much better option in the long run.
 
I do hope the borders stay open. I really do. I only make the point that in the end they are gonna do what they want and whatever that is I will accept it because they have the right to vote on how they manage the animals in their state.

I honestly think they need to limit both resident and nonresident tags more than they currently do. G and H would be much better deer units than they already are if they went away from unlimited resident tag numbers and were more conservative with how many animals get killed each year. They do have a lot of deer but unlimited resident tags is not sustainable forever. I am no biologist but I think limiting those unlimited tags would be a much better option in the long run.
What’s wrong with G now? G currently has trophy bucks and provides LOTS of opportunity for residents to hunt. What unit in the west pumps out as many big bucks and let’s so many people hunt it?

Why are hunters always trying to limit other hunters?
 
Guess I missed the discount the western states guys get in whitetails? You know, all us guys getting to pay for tags, plus leases or guides.

The increase or cost in the West to DIY is nowhere near what you fellas hit us with if we go east.

None of us are going whitetail hunting for $650, $750, $850. It ain't happening.

I've yet to see one bill in any state east of Colorado for lowered prices for dudes from mtn states.

Come on up to MN, whitetail tags are OTC for $185 and we have more public land than you could hunt in 3 lifetimes.
 
Maybe next session someone could propose overhauling the landowner tag law. Those tags come out of the tag pool and in some LQ units that is a fair percentage of all the tags. Much bigger problem, IMO.
The way that legislation was written, there's NO WAY it would have passed. Of course that's my own opinion. Last I checked it wasn't worth that much.
 
I would agree with the landowner tag deal. At least in Wyo landowner tags aren't transferable and sold to the highest bidders like they are in Colo. The Colo landowner deal is a joke.
 
Maybe next session someone could propose overhauling the landowner tag law. Those tags come out of the tag pool and in some LQ units that is a fair percentage of all the tags. Much bigger problem, IMO.
The way that legislation was written, there's NO WAY it would have passed. Of course that's my own opinion. Last I checked it wasn't worth that much.
Why wouldn’t the landowner tags come out of the quota? You want them just to add them additionally to the LQ tags? Heck in the area you’re in the majority of the landowners that qualify for landowner tags don’t even take them.

I have a bigger problem with all the commissioners tags. That needs overhauled.
 
Landowners can hunt the entire unit whether they allow hunting on their property or not. Simple fix: If you don't allow public hunting on your land, then YOU may only hunt YOUR land with a Landowner tag. Also, there seems to be an influx of nonresident landowners over the past several years whose only interest in owning land here is to get tags every year, thereby bypassing all the draws to hunt hard-to-draw LQ tags. If we're going to pick on the nonresident hunters, why not go all the way? Landowners who used to NEVER use the tags now have relatives who desire those tags. Many more of those tags are now being used by sons, daughters, son-in-laws, etc.
Agree with you about the commissioner tags!
 
I would love to see a little reciprocity...

NM residents should be in the draw until 6% of NR tags.
Utah residents get a single shot at a tag in most cases. As a bonus they could apply for 200 additional tags if they are willing to go to the state capital and apply in person (economic bonus to the receiving state).

California residents get a max of one elk tag from a state.
Only joking...I have seen that most people are fine with limiting the evil nonresident hordes in their own states but scream and cry when the states they also like to hunt try and limit their opportunity.

I am a resident in one state but hunt in a bunch (or apply in a bunch). Each state can set their rules how they want but it will affect where and when I spend my money. I think the good people of some more restrictive states might change their attitudes towards NR if they were held to the same standards and their NR neighbors.

I wish all western states would go to a standard to make the process a little more even. JMO.

I wish you all good luck in the draws...just not a good of luck as me:)
 
Found this on the internet.

In addition to the harm a 90/10 license concept would do to Wyoming’s tourism industry, it would also have drastic effects on the coffers of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Currently, approximately 20% of big game hunting licenses are issued to non-resident sportsmen yet this provides 80% of the department’s budget. Resident hunters receive approximately 80% of the hunting licenses yet this only provides 20% of the Game and Fish license revenue. Wyoming resident big game hunters only amount to 12% of Wyoming’s total population, approximately 70,000 citizens. Wyoming doesn’t have enough hunters to adequately fund the Game and Fish or to harvest the amount of big game needed for proper management. Under half of Wyoming’s resident hunters buy just one hunting license per year even though they have access to buy or draw for several species and an extra cow or doe tag. We simply do not have enough resident hunters to adequately manage our elk, deer and pronghorn antelope herds.

So it does look like the non-residents fund 80% of the Wyoming Fish & Game Department!
 
NR fund nowhere near 80% of the WY game dept.
The dept budget shows about 60% of their revenue comes from licenses, 80% of that 60% coming from nr, for a nr contribution of about 48% of the total dept revenue. Still a healthy amount but not 80%.

Untitled.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have to say, after looking at that chart and numbers, it ticks me off even more that states, not just Wyoming, are trying to restrict non residents to 10% of the tags. With 48% non resident tag and 25% fed contribution, there should be a set minimum (no not 10%) tag allocation across the west. Non residents provide quite a bit, but get so little respect it seems.
 
NR fund nowhere near 80% of the WY game dept.
The dept budget shows about 60% of their revenue comes from licenses, 80% of that 60% coming from nr, for a nr contribution of about 48% of the total dept revenue. Still a healthy amount but not 80%.

View attachment 3993

OK I will give your the 48% but now add in the 25% federal aid portion. now you have 73% of the budget not supported by resident hunters. Now add in the grants at 8% that is most-likely federal dollars as well. Now you have 81% of the budget not being paid by resident hunters.

So the 80% figure is not so far fetched.
 
Here's an interesting article in regard to the significant revenue impacts nonresidents have on budgets and local economies.


According to the article the CPW collected $38 million from nonres and only $7.6 million for nonres deer and elk license sales.

Here's an interesting read about outdoor economic contributions in Colorado. The average non-resident big game hunter spends more money per day, and the economic output contributed by non-resident big game hunters makes up nearly 50 percent of the total. In other words, there are a chunk fewer nonres hunters but nonres are contributing more/hunter to local economies.


Here's another interesting article that goes beyond license sales. It tells the importance of hunters to local economies.

Thats BS that non-residents are "contributing more/hunter" to the local economy. I spend more per day when I go on vacation too. Ridiculous argument.
 
Non residents provide quite a bit, but get so little respect it seems.

Right? And try being a resident here.......where a non-res can draw a moose tag with 3 points that you have been putting in for 20 years for.
 
OK I will give your the 48% but now add in the 25% federal aid portion. now you have 73% of the budget not supported by resident hunters. Now add in the grants at 8% that is most-likely federal dollars as well. Now you have 81% of the budget not being paid by resident hunters.

So the 80% figure is not so far fetched.

The Fed aid is reimbursement funds from the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson acts. Residents and NR end users and mfg's paid those monies as taxes.
 
There is one common thing I see in Wyoming at local G&F meetings, habitat improvement projects, big game transplants and tagging operations, fence removal and modification projects, water projects, task force & mule deer initiatives and the multitude of fundraisers for wildlife management: 99.9% of attendees and volunteers are Wyoming residents.
 
You could say that about any states service projects?? Maybe states could issue a bonus pt for volunteers.
 
There is one common thing I see in Wyoming at local G&F meetings, habitat improvement projects, big game transplants and tagging operations, fence removal and modification projects, water projects, task force & mule deer initiatives and the multitude of fundraisers for wildlife management: 99.9% of attendees and volunteers are Wyoming residents.
Serious question about volunteering time to those projects - where can a person find a list of upcoming projects to donate time to? Is it invitation only?
 
OK I will give your the 48% but now add in the 25% federal aid portion. now you have 73% of the budget not supported by resident hunters. Now add in the grants at 8% that is most-likely federal dollars as well. Now you have 81% of the budget not being paid by resident hunters.

So the 80% figure is not so far fetched.

Most of the P/R funds don't even come from people that buy licenses...the excise tax is paid by anyone that buys ammo, firearms, etc...a majority that buy those items, don't hunt.

I'd use caution with over-playing your NR superiority hand, when it comes to funding.
 
Most of the P/R funds don't even come from people that buy licenses...the excise tax is paid by anyone that buys ammo, firearms, etc...a majority that buy those items, don't hunt.

I'd use caution with over-playing your NR superiority hand, when it comes to funding.
Not a superiority at all I fully believe residents should have a majority of licences but if we cant use those funds to calculate the percentage then they should be thrown out for both sides. If 80% of the department revenue from license sales if from Non residents then it is completely acceptable to say that the majority of funding comes from non residents.

If they are going to get those other monies anyway and we are talking about funding that is being brought from license sales then it is right to point out that 80% of the license sale budget is from nonresident hunters.

But hell even at 48% that is a HUGE portion of the budget.

Side note, I do not, and do not plan on hunting in Wyoming any time soon, just an observation from a somewhat unbiased observer.
 
States, will never get rid of non residents, way to any businesses would lose money or go out of buisness
 
I for one don't want to get rid of NR hunters. I have met and enjoy some great people who are NR. Heck, my father is a NR. I just feel Wyoming should make it a 90/10 split across the board for all big game species. Not sure how many businesses will go bankrupt by doing this.
 
I for one don't want to get rid of NR hunters. I have met and enjoy some great people who are NR. Heck, my father is a NR. I just feel Wyoming should make it a 90/10 split across the board for all big game species. Not sure how many businesses will go bankrupt by doing this.
I can attest thst Bryon is a good guy and does more than his fair share to help the non-resident.
 
Wyom
In terms of quality and quantity, the state of Wyoming already provides its residents the best resident hunting of any western state. How can a resident complain when they already have it so good?

I have been considering establishing residency in Wyoming for a few years because it is so good. I personally enjoy elk, deer, and antelope. If they make things even better for residents, I just might have to do it. Those of you who are avid hunters might want to consider the same.

Wyoming is at full capacity. Thanks for looking
 
WYOGA.

They have the power to close public land, they have the power to maintain NR hunting.

Always fun to read about how Wyoming is somehow different.

Utah has $fw, Wyoming has WYOGA. Both are dedicated to the preservation of high dollar NR hunting.

Neither state has any intention of curtailing it, they plan on continuing to milk it to death.
 
Wow, WYOGA has the power to close public land...funny stuff and wacky even for you Hoss.

Ask WYOGA how their 60-40 bills went the last couple times they tried to run that.

Ask them how much time and money they've spent trying to keep 90-10 from happening.

They're playing defense...
 
Wow, WYOGA has the power to close public land...funny stuff and wacky even for you Hoss.

Ask WYOGA how their 60-40 bills went the last couple times they tried to run that.

Ask them how much time and money they've spent trying to keep 90-10 from happening.

They're playing defense...

True enough now, but they did have the power, long ago, to get the wilderness areas shut down for the NR to hunt big and trophy game.
 
I guided 5 years in the wyoming wilderness, of all the clients we took (30+/year), I can count on 1 hand the amount of those hunters who would have even considered undertaking that hunt on their own had the law not been present. There will always be the need for those outfitters wilderness law or not. It is far from easy to do a backcountry camp 15+miles in for the average horse hunting DIY hunter. . I think 90/10 for LQ is what it should be like most other states, and I do think its only a matter of time before change happens.
Agreed.....i dont think doing away with wilderness gig will put outfitters out of business. A lot of time and money goes into a camp 10+ miles in the wilderness
 
Wow, WYOGA has the power to close public land...funny stuff and wacky even for you Hoss.

Ask WYOGA how their 60-40 bills went the last couple times they tried to run that.

Ask them how much time and money they've spent trying to keep 90-10 from happening.

They're playing defense...

So wilderness is open?

As usual a nice spin around reality
 
True enough now, but they did have the power, long ago, to get the wilderness areas shut down for the NR to hunt big and trophy game.
Did they have power or was the average resident hunter just indifferent and uninformed?
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom