And the Hits just keep on coming....WY now.

[BuzzH]

Let's say that after these proposed changes take effect that the general elk tag takes 6 pp to draw. I don't think that will be unreasonable at all, will probably be more.

That means at $51 bucks a year, if that stays the same, it will take $306 worth of preference points to draw, plus, $1100 for the tag, plus application and credit card transaction fees, habitat stamp, etc, and so on.

That will put a non-resident spending about $1600 bucks just to get licensed and a tag in he pocket.

Knock the quota in LE units in half as well.....

Those rooting for some of the western point schemes to implode are probably doing a happy dance with ever increasing vigor with every legislative session that comes and goes.

I have seen a lot of arguments against it, however I still believe it is just a matter of time before the bubble busts. What I am afraid of is that it is going to be habitat and wildlife that gets smacked when it does.

About in line with a general NR bull elk rifle tag in Arizona...only several hundred cheaper.

 

[Pucky Freak]

I read the bill. 90/10 split applies to MSG. Deer/elk/lope are not affected. Am I missing something?

 

[Shangobango]

About in line with a general NR bull elk rifle tag in Arizona...only several hundred cheaper.

When I just checked an Arizona elk tag was $665, plus the points are cheaper.

Did you mean Nevada perhaps?

 

[thomas89]

Kids: “Daddy, why did we leave all our friends and family in California and move to Wyoming?”

Dad: “so I can shoot a deer n elk every year.”

I’ve done crazier sh*t for less.

 

[Oak]

I read the bill. 90/10 split applies to MSG. Deer/elk/lope are not affected. Am I missing something?

Yeah, it applies to everything.

"The commission shall reserve not less than ninety percent (90%) of the limited quota big game animal, wild bison and grizzly bear licenses to be issued in any one (1) year for resident hunters in the initial license drawings."

 

[Bullshot]

I am the last person in my family that hunts - no hunting spouse, siblings, kids, cousins, nephews, aunts or uncles. In some ways that’s very upsetting but I also take some solace amongst this drip drip drip of discouragement. The rest of my family, and my future generations most likely, will be none the wiser. It’s nobody’s fault really. Too many people, too few animals, and maybe a little bit of a few individuals or groups of people taking too many animals, too. In the moment, the changes to law can seem clunky and unfair but we all will share in the trend. NR before residents, but them as well over time.

I love the Rocky Mountain west although I was not lucky enough to be born there and my life path didn’t get me there, I’ll continue to pay what fees I can for what opportunities I can muster.

 

[Big Fin]

I have always felt Wyoming was a screaming deal, for both the quality-to-price ratio and the generous allocation to non-residents. I hoped it would stay that way. But, I completely understand Wyoming residents wanting change. If I lived there, I would have been pressing for this change for decades, putting the state in close alignment with most the other western states, Colorado notwithstanding.

For my own selfish reasons, I hope things stay the same, though I think this bill will likely pass. And if it passes I completely understand why. And I will be thankful to the non-resident generosity Wyoming has shown for so many years. It would hypocrisy for me to live in a state that limits non-residents to 10%, then bitch about an effort in another state to enact the same 90/10 res/non-res split.

Thankfully, this would be a change to benefit resident hunters, not a private interest group. Absent the Montana/New Mexico flavor of reducing non-resident opportunity for the chosen few with political power, this change is easier to accept (although not my preference) and its motivation is easy to understand.

That said, a big part of why I've never found the Wyoming Wilderness law an issue worth losing sleep over has been the historical generosity Wyoming showed to non-residents. If this passes, my interest in seeing that Wilderness law changed, in some manner or by some mechanism, will surely increase.

I would also expect Colorado residents to look at Wyoming and start efforts to bring their non-resident generosity more in line with other western states. As western state populations grow, and have grown, at very high rates, changes in resident/non-resident allocations come as no surprise to me.

 

[JM77]

I have always felt Wyoming was a screaming deal, for both the quality-to-price ratio and the generous allocation to non-residents. I hoped it would stay that way. But, I completely understand Wyoming residents wanting change. If I lived there, I would have been pressing for this change for decades, putting the state in close alignment with most the other western states, Colorado notwithstanding.

For my own selfish reasons, I hope things stay the same, though I think this bill will likely pass. And if it passes I completely understand why. And I will be thankful to the non-resident generosity Wyoming has shown for so many years. It would hypocrisy for me to live in a state that limits non-residents to 10%, then bitch about an effort in another state to enact the same 90/10 res/non-res split.

Thankfully, this would be a change to benefit resident hunters, not a private interest group. Absent the Montana/New Mexico flavor of reducing non-resident opportunity for the chosen few with political power, this change is easier to accept (although not my preference) and its motivation is easy to understand.

That said, a big part of why I've never found the Wyoming Wilderness law an issue worth losing sleep over has been the historical generosity Wyoming showed to non-residents. If this passes, my interest in seeing that Wilderness law changed, in some manner or by some mechanism, will surely increase.

I would also expect Colorado residents to look at Wyoming and start efforts to bring their non-resident generosity more in line with other western states. As western state populations grow, and have grown, at very high rates, changes in resident/non-resident allocations come as no surprise to me.

Randy, it may pass, but not in it's entirety. IMO

 

[trb]

Looked through the language but must have missed it...will it effect reduced price tags as well?

 

[Pucky Freak]

I would not be at all surprised if the NR lope quota gets amended to >10%. These don’t seem to be in nearly as high demand as R LQ elk

 

[Deleted member 28227]

That was not a major recession. That was a very short term retraction by all accounts.

Plus it’s effects were not ubiquitous across all fields or income brackets, there were a lot of people who experience no negative effects or were better off.

 

[BuzzH]

When I just checked an Arizona elk tag was $665, plus the points are cheaper.

Did you mean Nevada perhaps?

Yeah, and $160 a year for the license...and the fact it takes 6-10 years to even draw a general elk tag.

What's 160x10+665+application fee equal?

By the time you draw a 10 point elk tag you're well past $2200

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I have always felt Wyoming was a screaming deal, for both the quality-to-price ratio and the generous allocation to non-residents. I hoped it would stay that way. But, I completely understand Wyoming residents wanting change. If I lived there, I would have been pressing for this change for decades, putting the state in close alignment with most the other western states, Colorado notwithstanding.

For my own selfish reasons, I hope things stay the same, though I think this bill will likely pass. And if it passes I completely understand why. And I will be thankful to the non-resident generosity Wyoming has shown for so many years. It would hypocrisy for me to live in a state that limits non-residents to 10%, then bitch about an effort in another state to enact the same 90/10 res/non-res split.

Thankfully, this would be a change to benefit resident hunters, not a private interest group. Absent the Montana/New Mexico flavor of reducing non-resident opportunity for the chosen few with political power, this change is easier to accept (although not my preference) and its motivation is easy to understand.

That said, a big part of why I've never found the Wyoming Wilderness law an issue worth losing sleep over has been the historical generosity Wyoming showed to non-residents. If this passes, my interest in seeing that Wilderness law changed, in some manner or by some mechanism, will surely increase.

I would also expect Colorado residents to look at Wyoming and start efforts to bring their non-resident generosity more in line with other western states. As western state populations grow, and have grown, at very high rates, changes in resident/non-resident allocations come as no surprise to me.

If CO went fully limited and capped NR at 10% I’m not sure what NR elk hunting would look like in the Rockies. I just can’t wrap my head around cutting NR tags by > 40,000.

There are as many NR elk hunters in CO as there are total elk hunters in WY.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

My only takeaway from all of this is that my dreams of hunting the bighorns for elk with my bow have been crushed. Then set on fire.

Move to WY

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Nevada and Utah LE licenses off the top of my head. MT isn’t too far behind. If I could get a bull elk tag every year in WY for $1,100 I’d take it and laugh all the way across I80.

you can get a MT elk, deer, and fishing license for less..

 

[ccc23454]

Move to WY

Funny thing is he said he has 6 points but didnt even apply, thats enough to draw atleast one -9 tag in bighorns last year even...i have never drawn a tag when i didnt apply for it

 

[Shangobango]

Access and opportunity as long as you have a fat wallet and/or the right zip code.

I believe that is a short sighted view of the long term sustainability of wildlife and wildlife habitat.

 

[BrentD]

Since most of that western hunting is hosted on or at least by herds that depend largely upon federal public lands, there may come a point when the landowners have had enough. I wonder about that.

 

[Matt R]

I have always felt Wyoming was a screaming deal, for both the quality-to-price ratio and the generous allocation to non-residents. I hoped it would stay that way. But, I completely understand Wyoming residents wanting change. If I lived there, I would have been pressing for this change for decades, putting the state in close alignment with most the other western states, Colorado notwithstanding.

For my own selfish reasons, I hope things stay the same, though I think this bill will likely pass. And if it passes I completely understand why. And I will be thankful to the non-resident generosity Wyoming has shown for so many years. It would hypocrisy for me to live in a state that limits non-residents to 10%, then bitch about an effort in another state to enact the same 90/10 res/non-res split.

Thankfully, this would be a change to benefit resident hunters, not a private interest group. Absent the Montana/New Mexico flavor of reducing non-resident opportunity for the chosen few with political power, this change is easier to accept (although not my preference) and its motivation is easy to understand.

That said, a big part of why I've never found the Wyoming Wilderness law an issue worth losing sleep over has been the historical generosity Wyoming showed to non-residents. If this passes, my interest in seeing that Wilderness law changed, in some manner or by some mechanism, will surely increase.

I would also expect Colorado residents to look at Wyoming and start efforts to bring their non-resident generosity more in line with other western states. As western state populations grow, and have grown, at very high rates, changes in resident/non-resident allocations come as no surprise to me.

My worries are perhaps a bit different than many others but I'm afraid that further limiting NR opportunity, whether it be tag price increases or license cuts like this, is going to take the wind out of the sails that you and others have so aptly set Big Fin. Hunting has to remain accessible by the commons if it is going to resemble the surplus of the commons that the NA model seeks. I'm not sure if there will be a multitude of neophyte hunters that want to start investing in something like a 6 point pronghorn hunt without previous hunting experiences to persuade them to do so. Perhaps out of state big game hunting isn't the gateway drug in this sense and in state opportunities are where these seeds need sown but it is something that is on my mind. I'm not saying that this is going to necessarily put a damper on NR hunting, but I want to see that $8M directly (as much as possible) lead to more animals on the ground that will in turn increase NR opportunity while improving habitat and the myriad benefits that come with it. Conservation, in general, needs to stop being a discretionary item in budgets and having little or no assistance from the state's (or federal) coffers but that is another topic....

 

[BrentD]

MattR, your worries are exactly what mine have been for many years now. The days of big game hunting as it is now, are nearly over. G&F departments supported 70% or more on hunting dollars are not sustainable with politicians that want to do the tribal table dance on the fingers and wallets of nonvoting out-of-staters.