BuzzH
Well-known member
Still waiting for a legitimate argument on why Wyoming residents are greedy bastards for wanting the same, or even lesser, allocations that Residents in every other state.
Have an answer for that?
And the Hits just keep on coming....WY now.
- Thread starter Trial153
- Start date
Have an answer for that?
brocksw
Well-known member
Buzz, you are hopeless sometimes. So many comical analogies that come to mind when you get like this...but for now I'll just shake my head and face palm.
Well CO deer tags are I think $400 and would consider that an upgrade of a hunt in comparison to most of WY deer hunts. I can assure you if these prices are upheld they will be the priciest state across the west to hunt for most species on average!
D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
Hicks suggested the bill could be bifurcated into the pricing and tag % pieces. The committee discussion will be interesting and pretty telling as to the eventual outcome I think.
If we want to truly make the Montana argument then the only way to really compare is the combo tag which is like 1100 for both. The same two tags in WY would be $1600 if this is passed. I’m not sure everyone would agree that WY General is far better than a MT general elk tag or deer for that matter? With the exception of maybe region G or H but those require several several pts. I had a WY general deer tag last yr and I might as well burned up $100 dollar bills. Terrible terrible hunt for lots of reasons. I’m sure other areas could have been better so I won’t say the state as a whole. But that area was a waste of time and money. And the elk was even worse
BlakeA
Well-known member
I agree that alot of CO hunts would be an upgrade for now but how much longer? With the season date changes, they are about to give an absolute whooping on mature deer over the next 2 years. Also, Wyoming allows you to archery hunt for 30 days and then go back with a rifle. Similar to Montana but half the price for overall the same if not better quality experience/bucks. Most CO hunts besides archery are week long seasons. I fully expect CO to raise prices within a few years as well. I hear you Thomas11 it sucks, but I can't blame a state for trying to get up to the times with the surrounding states.
brocksw
Well-known member
You certainly can't blame them. It's logical right? But the question becomes...when does it stop? Why is it needed? Is WY game and fish short on funds? If not, then is the price hike justified? If it isn't within Wyoming, in terms of management dollars or budgetary spending, then just taking the money because they can seems a bit off. Why not just auction them all off it's all about money? Do tags ever get cheaper? If the answer is no, then why would we be in a hurry to make them more expensive if funds are not needed?
Again...people are just asking questions. Are we....or is wyoming...doing the right thing? Maybe in the near future it's irrelevant....but what about in the long term? Should we doing everything we can to get other states to be cheaper and not get wyoming to get more expensive?
The trend is clear...Up, Up, and Up. There will always be someone willing to pay any price asked. Sheep hunts sell out just fine...but where does that leave everyone else?
Addicting
Well-known member
@BuzzH what is your take on this when the free gov money train shuts down and we hit the recession we are primed for. What is the most sustainable way to keep money coming in to support the budget?
This bill only seems to work when there is a surplus, next recession there won’t be one.
This bill only seems to work when there is a surplus, next recession there won’t be one.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Yeah, you don't have one...because there isnt one.
R
rwc101
Guest
It would be nice if it were possible to put a sticker price on management, but I don't think you can. I would like a couple dozen more wildlife under/overpasses across the state. It would be nice to have enough small game and bird biologists to have an idea how many blue grouse are in the state and to keep a better eye on RHDV2. Maybe some range treatment and land acquisition so our sage grouse population can increase instead of wavering between dips and holding steady. Increase G&F revenue threefold and they would still have valuable research and management projects to last them decades.
WapitiBob
Well-known member
Is an AZ Strip tag worth the same as a 1st season Couse tag in 30?
utah400elk
Well-known member
JMO
I would really like to see some standardization from state to state. Buzz makes a fair argument (he just sometimes comes across like a B-hole). I am sure he is tired of being attached for wanting an equitable split but only he can answer to that. I have always found Buzz to be a great guy and he has helped me numerous times (via PM). It does seem unfair that ND won’t allow NR to hunt a few select species but their residents want a bigger share of the WY pie...same for UT, NV, CA etc... I apply in many states and lived in WY for many years. If all states went to 90-10 it would be more fair. They can charge what they want and people can choose to apply or not. I have lived in WY and FL.
My issue is with the underlying hatred for the NR hunters. It’s not good for hunting IMO. I think it would be great to see a standardized 90-10 split. However, this Wyoming bill is short sighted. There are too many Wyoming residents putting in for LE tags. Removing the tags from the NR pool will not significantly increase the resident draw odds for unit 100 elk tags (insert your favorite unit here). This is a knee jerk reaction to people not drawing tags. However, I do think it makes sense to have all states treat NR equal. Looking at their states surrounding WY...WY has been more than fair to the NR.
I wish UT, NV, ID would adopt a 90-10 split. That would be more opportunity for every NR. It seems there are a lot of people who want their states to restrict NR but complain like hell when other do the same thing.
I dropped out of NM when they changed their rules but now apply again. I have adopted Randy’s moto. I am sure my health will run out before my hunting desire so I will grin and bear it when applying...that includes the WY price hike.
Good luck
I would really like to see some standardization from state to state. Buzz makes a fair argument (he just sometimes comes across like a B-hole). I am sure he is tired of being attached for wanting an equitable split but only he can answer to that. I have always found Buzz to be a great guy and he has helped me numerous times (via PM). It does seem unfair that ND won’t allow NR to hunt a few select species but their residents want a bigger share of the WY pie...same for UT, NV, CA etc... I apply in many states and lived in WY for many years. If all states went to 90-10 it would be more fair. They can charge what they want and people can choose to apply or not. I have lived in WY and FL.
My issue is with the underlying hatred for the NR hunters. It’s not good for hunting IMO. I think it would be great to see a standardized 90-10 split. However, this Wyoming bill is short sighted. There are too many Wyoming residents putting in for LE tags. Removing the tags from the NR pool will not significantly increase the resident draw odds for unit 100 elk tags (insert your favorite unit here). This is a knee jerk reaction to people not drawing tags. However, I do think it makes sense to have all states treat NR equal. Looking at their states surrounding WY...WY has been more than fair to the NR.
I wish UT, NV, ID would adopt a 90-10 split. That would be more opportunity for every NR. It seems there are a lot of people who want their states to restrict NR but complain like hell when other do the same thing.
I dropped out of NM when they changed their rules but now apply again. I have adopted Randy’s moto. I am sure my health will run out before my hunting desire so I will grin and bear it when applying...that includes the WY price hike.
Good luck
brocksw
Well-known member
@JLS new thread he started was on point:
"How is this related to NR hunting? It's simple. The NA model relies on participation and advocacy to make it work. If no one participates, no one advocates. If no one advocates, the resource suffers unless there is a financial incentive to promote or propagate it. How do you make someone care about something they have no personal connection to?"
All of these bills and game decisions seem to trend to exclusivity in states that are the hubs of western hunting.
We're just shrinking the pool little by little, until someday we'll just be a puddle.
"How is this related to NR hunting? It's simple. The NA model relies on participation and advocacy to make it work. If no one participates, no one advocates. If no one advocates, the resource suffers unless there is a financial incentive to promote or propagate it. How do you make someone care about something they have no personal connection to?"
All of these bills and game decisions seem to trend to exclusivity in states that are the hubs of western hunting.
We're just shrinking the pool little by little, until someday we'll just be a puddle.
Maybe myopic but the time spent fighting for WY will now be spent fighting for land close to home. And with an attitude like Buzz who would take a third pronghorn buck tag..."all day long, and greedily" why should I worry about what happens in WY?
Addicting
Well-known member
I can’t answer that, I don’t know.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
If they are over-priced then don't buy one. If others believe they are overpriced then they will do the same and the market will give the pricing feedback to WY. It is that simple.
The question should not be whether the price should be $600, $800, or $2,000. In my view, the question is, should states monetize wildlife at prices inaccessible to the average person to fund whole departments? To that, the answer is either Yes or No, not, whether or not I like the price.
BuzzH
Well-known member
It won't stop. Just like it hasn't in MT, ND, SD, IL, WA, FL, you name it. Not many other things, including median US income has went down either. That ship sailed a long time ago.
Wyoming GF is not short on funds, and this will answer another question that's been asked about, "what happens in a recession".
Wyoming GF is self funded and can also roll money into an account to save for downturns in later years or unforseen expenses. I don't want my department running on a shoe-string year to year budget. I don't run my personal finances like that and the GF has the ability to roll additional funds into accounts to be used later so they don't have to either. It makes one thing, sense.
Plus, there are literally HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of uses for additional funding. Hiring more GF employees, increasing their pay to keep good employees here, studies, migration work, habitat improvements, more over-passes that cost multi-millions each and the list is endless...you get the point, I hope.
If the stated goal of making a bigger pie in terms of wildlife, access, etc has any merit or fact, its going to take more than just an annual GF shoe-string budget to make that happen.
It's laughable to hear hunters, in general, want to "create a bigger pie", then be the tightest clowns on the planet and whine every time a fee increase is even suggested.
You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit....
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Unless the next recession that you're predicting is multitudes more severe than 2008...nothing will change with NR license sales. GF has been solvent for decades....
brocksw
Well-known member
I know Buzz through BHA, I don't take it personal and I'm certainly not upset, I like Buzz. He has a reputation for getting like this sometimes and I have no problem with it....it just becomes difficult to have a conversation with him in this state. If I see him at a rendezvous it will all be fine.
Again, his point about ND, while valid...isn't apples to apples. Not long ago we barely had any moose. Our game laws and tag allocations come from a time when we had almost no moose, no elk, no sheep.... so we're starting from a much different place. In ND, we measure the numbers of sheep tags we give out on one hand, the number of elk tags in the entire state is like one unit in WY. The moose tag is a real conversation. Those populations are growing fast and landowners seem to be increasingly frustrated playing host to more moose. So that might be a legitimate conversation in the near future to open it up to non-residents...no doubt ND residents will fight that and want that opportunity for themselves. Same with elk. But that doesn't make them right. And we'd still be a long, long, long ways from the type of populations that other western states are dealing with. Sharing 10-15 thousand plus elk tags is a bit different than sharing 400.
I'm also not saying Buzz might not be right in this situation....but again....where does it stop? We have to be willing to listen to the questions and have the conversation...
Similar threads
