De-publicize, De-glorify and De-monetize Western State Hunting

[dgc1963]

The fact that Randy is letting you “pee on his corn flakes” as one user above wrote (really like that saying, thanks for sharing)

Welcome you can use it any time you want just send 13 cent royalty ill PM you the address

 

[Shangobango]

Hey what do I know about this issue?

For starters, even though I've stated it over and over again, NR's need to put their listening ears on. From here on out, I'm only going to cut and paste this thread in regard to 90-10.

To address the money issue, NR's do contribute more of the LICENSE revenue in WY, but not the over-all budget. Look it up, I'm not a secretary.

If you believe money is the answer to these problems, you'd be wrong. I just listened to the commission meeting, where Doug B. made the comment that they've just thrown 9 million into mule deer to improve herds. The GF is currently sitting on about a years worth of surplus funding...meaning we have a surplus of right around 50-60 million according to the Director last time I met with him during a roundtable discussion.

So, yes, all States appreciate the NR contribution of money, but its not fixing the woe's of wildlife and if money really was the key to solving the issues then I'd address you to look at bighorn sheep management. We've spent a metric chit ton of money to "build a bigger pie"...and all I'm seeing is money going out, and tags being reduced. If money per animal spent created a bigger pie...we'd be swimming in bighorns. But, we aren't.

Another thing to keep in mind is that NR's in Wyoming under a 90-10 bill would NOT lose a single full priced elk tag...not one. Regulation sets 7,250 full priced tags going to NR's. All 90-10 would do is shift more tags into the general pool and tag 6% of the LQ tags from NR's. But, the net loss would be ZERO. If NR's can't be happy hunting on perhaps THE BEST general tag in the United States for elk...well, too bad, go somewhere else. When it comes to the LQ tags, I won't apologize for wanting 1,000 more Residents to enjoy those tags than a NR. The other states I apply for elk in, UT, NV, AZ (formerly MT) all hold me to 10% or LESS of their tags. That's fine with me. We also have to quit looking at this in the short term...1000 tags a year doesn't increase draw odds, but its 1000 more Residents that get to enjoy LQ elk hunting. Over 10 years, that's 10K more residents that reap the rewards of what they put up with to live here....and that is significant, on all counts.

Yes, NR's will lose 15% of their sheep tags, meaning that 30 or so more Resident sheep hunters get the chance. Again, they've earned it, they've lived here, they shop locally year round, they support wildlife year round. Again, the odds don't increase significantly, but over 10 years, 300 more Residents would get to hunt sheep. That is significant to 300 Residents.

Same with moose, goats, and bison...every state that has those species limit NR's to a range of from ZERO to 10% of their tags. Its not unreasonable for Wyoming Residents to expect the same.

I would recommend at this time to leave LQ deer and LQ pronghorn at current allocations. Being that NR's are receiving OVER their allocation of both...I don't see why there would be any belly-aching. I can tell the NR's, that their whining about 90-10 in regard to full priced LQ elk, moose, sheep, goat, and bison...has resulted in many R's now just pushing for ALL tags to go 90-10.

I've said it a lot, and I believe that NR's have had it way too good, for way too long in Wyoming. Wyoming's generosity has turned into NR's thinking they're entitled to something. That entitlement has led to a false premise that NR's think Residents are a bunch of assholes for wanting to change the allocations to benefit our citizens. We want what the rest of the Western States Residents enjoy...and that's not an unreasonable expectation.

Well, the times have changed...and changed a lot. In spite of adequate funding, increased studies, all that...our herds just aren't doing as well. Meaning that there just isn't the wildlife available to share. This year, almost 10K less pronghorn tags than issued in 2020. That number down over 20K pronghorn tags that were issued in 1990. We've lost about 1k pronghorn permits a year over the last 30 years. If this trend continues, expect R's to reduce NR allocations. Again, I'm going to work on ways to favor the Resident hunters and make sure they aren't on the side-lines while a NR takes their place. I wouldn't expect a Resident of AZ to increase my allocation of tags just so they could watch me hunt one. I would also expect less opportunity to change to favor Residents in tough times, including reducing the NR allocations.

So, the facts point out that a vast majority of the NR complaining about 90-10 is about nothing more than WHERE they hunt, not a drop in total tags. Region wide NR general deer tags, no impact under 90-10. All 7,250 full priced tags, no change in total tags under 90-10. As pointed out, NR's get over-allocations of pronghorn, LQ deer, cow/calf doe/fawn deer and pronghorn already. Yes, 10% loss of moose, goat, and bison and 15% of the sheep quota. Those rare hunts should be 90% resident opportunity. Not much to complain about, and I would just recommend those that would quit applying under 90-10 good luck in the other Western states that provide vastly less opportunity. In particular opportunity with any quality.

Finally, under 90-10 building a bigger pie will benefit both NR's and R's, and it is a goal we all need to focus on. IMO/E, building that bigger pie has much more to do with local involvement, that Residents shoulder a vast, vast majority of, than a NR cutting a check every year, or 3 or 5 to whack a big-game animal.

But, like I said, what would I know...I'm just the guy blowing vacation days, money, fighting crap legislation, attending meetings, putting thousand of miles on my vehicles, taking time away from hunting, family, etc. etc. on top of taking shit from all angles working for wildlife here in Wyoming. Wish I could just cut a check for a NR tag once every 1-5 years and skip the real work...

Carry on...

Buzz,

Let me start my reply, which I almost started not to make, by saying that I for one sincerely appreciate the work you and others are doing and the sacrifices that you and others are making on behalf of wildlife. I am personally striving to emulate that more myself. Thanks for doing what you do.

I am not sure why you seemed to have taken my post as a personal affront though. Hell, we basically agree. I think where we differ is that you seem to be of the opinion that everyone who doesn't live in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, etc. is just out here sitting on our thumbs letting you do the real work. I think that is B.S. to be frank. Do the residents on the frontline shoulder more of the load? Naturally. I am not arguing that point. But then again, are you saying that our memberships and donations to RMEF, BHA, TRCP, The Mule Deer Foundation, etc. are not needed? Do the high priced tags and fees we pay to hunt up there make no difference at all? Do the emails we send to the various departments on various issues mean nothing? Is the money we spend while we are up there chasing our hunting dreams not needed?

Furthermore, and I am not saying that this is your attitude Buzz because I don't think that it is, the attitude from non-residents and residents alike of "screw the other guy" does absolutely nothing to solve any of the issues facing wildlife anywhere. As a matter of fact, I would say it is detrimental. It would be very easy for someone reading some of the posts on this site to come to the conclusion that neither themselves nor their advocacy is wanted in some of these Rocky Mountain States. To be fair, go to some sites dealing with similar issues with different species in States in other parts of the country and the same is true.

How is convincing non-residents that they shouldn't give a shit about wildlife in Wyoming, because whatever contribution that they are able to make to that wildlife is worthless or next to worthless, good for wildlife and public lands in Wyoming? Insert whatever State you want anywhere in the country into the previous question. What is the answer?

In my post here and the posts I made on the subject in other threads I clearly stated that residents should have more opportunity than non-residents. I don't see very many if any here arguing against that. IF States want to go to 90/10 or 95/5 they have every right. Just don't try to sell it as, " hey we are protecting the resource by cutting non-res opportunity, those damn non-res hunters are killing all our game". Well you don't have to be a mathematician to shoot holes all in that notion. I am not saying that is what you are doing Buzz because obviously you are not and you just seem to want more tags for Wyoming residents which is perfectly understandable.

I also don't think anyone really thinks that money is the solution to all the woes facing wildlife either, but try addressing the issues without it.

Once again, we are basically in agreement Buzz. One of the main reasons I am on this site is to learn how to be a better advocate for wildlife and public land with the resources that I have available. Outside of family and work, wildlife IS my life. Almost everything I do revolves around it. If there is anything that I can do to become a better advocate for wildlife and public lands, once again, I am all ears. I am open to all reasonable suggestions.

Oh, telling me to "stay the hell off my lawn" is not a reasonable suggestion.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz,

Let me start my reply, which I almost started not to make, by saying that I for one sincerely appreciate the work you and others are doing and the sacrifices that you and others are making on behalf of wildlife. I am personally striving to emulate that more myself. Thanks for doing what you do.

I am not sure why you seemed to have taken my post as a personal affront though. Hell, we basically agree. I think where we differ is that you seem to be of the opinion that everyone who doesn't live in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, etc. is just out here sitting on our thumbs letting you do the real work. I think that is B.S. to be frank. Do the residents on the frontline shoulder more of the load? Naturally. I am not arguing that point. But then again, are you saying that our memberships and donations to RMEF, BHA, TRCP, The Mule Deer Foundation, etc. are not needed? Do the high priced tags and fees we pay to hunt up there make no difference at all? Do the emails we send to the various departments on various issues mean nothing? Is the money we spend while we are up there chasing our hunting dreams not needed?

Furthermore, and I am not saying that this is your attitude Buzz because I don't think that it is, the attitude from non-residents and residents alike of "screw the other guy" does absolutely nothing to solve any of the issues facing wildlife anywhere. As a matter of fact, I would say it is detrimental. It would be very easy for someone reading some of the posts on this site to come to the conclusion that neither themselves nor their advocacy is wanted in some of these Rocky Mountain States. To be fair, go to some sites dealing with similar issues with different species in States in other parts of the country and the same is true.

How is convincing non-residents that they shouldn't give a shit about wildlife in Wyoming, because whatever contribution that they are able to make to that wildlife is worthless or next to worthless, good for wildlife and public lands in Wyoming? Insert whatever State you want anywhere in the country into the previous question. What is the answer?

In my post here and the posts I made on the subject in other threads I clearly stated that residents should have more opportunity than non-residents. I don't see very many if any here arguing against that. IF States want to go to 90/10 or 95/5 they have every right. Just don't try to sell it as, " hey we are protecting the resource by cutting non-res opportunity, those damn non-res hunters are killing all our game". Well you don't have to be a mathematician to shoot holes all in that notion. I am not saying that is what you are doing Buzz because obviously you are not and you just seem to want more tags for Wyoming residents which is perfectly understandable.

I also don't think anyone really thinks that money is the solution to all the woes facing wildlife either, but try addressing the issues without it.

Once again, we are basically in agreement Buzz. One of the main reasons I am on this site is to learn how to be a better advocate for wildlife and public land with the resources that I have available. Outside of family and work, wildlife IS my life. Almost everything I do revolves around it. If there is anything that I can do to become a better advocate for wildlife and public lands, once again, I am all ears. I am open to all reasonable suggestions.

Oh, telling me to "stay the hell off my lawn" is not a reasonable suggestion.

Show me where 90-10 LQ elk is going to reduce NR elk hunting opportunity, we'll start there. Please come up with the place where NR funding is going to decline, where there will be a decline in revenue to local economies from NR elk hunters.

 

[huntHARDer]

Buzz, you the quintessential angry white guy. don' t blow a gasket, I'm with ya brother

 

[huntHARDer]

ok, my #1 pet peever: Wyoming OUTFITTERS. Hate'em. We don't need these parasites, don't want'em. Why oh WHY are Outfitters and Guides needed anywhere? You talk about suckin' off the public's teat?! These maggots make a living off of YOUR wildlife. If you want to de-monetize hunting, get rid of these scoundrels

 

[Shangobango]

Show me where 90-10 LQ elk is going to reduce NR elk hunting opportunity, we'll start there. Please come up with the place where NR funding is going to decline, where there will be a decline in revenue to local economies from NR elk hunters.

I am not saying any of that Buzz. You know the facts on 90/10 in Wyoming way better than I do and if Wyoming decides that is the way they want to go, more power to ya.

But while we are on the numbers, are you saying that there will be absolutely no reduction across the board in the total number of non-resident elk tags in Wyoming under 90/10? And, if there is a reduction in the total number of tags, how does less non-resident elk hunters not equal less revenue from non-resident elk hunters? I mean obviously the tag price is going up, but beyond that, less people spending money is probably going to equal less money spent right?

Anyway, I have no intention of arguing the facts of 90/10 in Wyoming. I will totally defer to you on that Buzz. I don't intend to ever put in for a LQ elk tag up there, only general. Only pronghorn and deer LQ's and if 90/10 goes through before I get the chance to come up for deer, then probably just pronghorn.

Edited to change this last sentence to better reflect my point:

I guess my point was more the fact that I am here asking for help to figure out how I can be a better advocate for wildlife and you are more interested in arguing 90/10 with me when I already said that I have no issue with residents getting more of the tags.

 

[RobertD]

I think that YOU may have WAYYYY more success creating advocates from resident hunters ... by a landslide because you scorn non-residents and they don't want to be around you.

I don't feel any scorn - I feel like asking myself what I can do for the resource instead of just my seat at the table. No disrespect but don't get your feelings hurt because dude is passionate - that's the kind of person whose team we should want to be on.

And @Ben Lamb you've made the most important point of the whole thread a few times... if we're just gonna fight about who gets to shoot the last buffalo, we might as well throw in the towel now.

There are tons of user groups that would be thrilled with less wildlife in favor of livestock, or less hunting in favor of whatever it is antihunters do... they would be thrilled with the idea of a bunch of hunters too busy fighting over tag allocations to notice all that we stand to lose in a big picture sense.

 

[MTGomer]

Buzz, you the quintessential angry white guy.

Welcome to hunt talk

 

[huntHARDer]

you like me? seems like it. anyway, I'll start a new thread showcasing my hate for Outfitters

 

[DouglasR]

Welcome to hunt talk

View attachment 181293

Wasn’t a terrible first post tho Lol

 

[huntHARDer]

Lowes did mess up my order. Now, I will have to wait another 2 weeks to replace my front door (which I tore off and hauled to the dump this a.m., thinking that I would be picking up my new door at Lowes. Bastages shipped it to Dothan Alabama instead of my local store, only 1,236 miles apart

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Idk what Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz to infinity and beyond is saying cause I ignore him, but I can only imagine going to Wyoming or whatever state he is from to help out with boots on the ground with him would be very similar to a Gulag. Oh...im sure he will bring donuts in the morning, but they are for residents only.

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

Idk what Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz to infinity and beyond is saying cause I ignore him, but I can only imagine going to Wyoming or whatever state he is from to help out with boots on the ground with him would be very similar to a Gulag. Oh...im sure he will bring donuts in the morning, but they are for residents only.

I see what you did there; that's funny.

 

[BuzzH]

I am not saying any of that Buzz. You know the facts on 90/10 in Wyoming way better than I do and if Wyoming decides that is the way they want to go, more power to ya.

But while we are on the numbers, are you saying that there will be absolutely no reduction across the board in the total number of non-resident elk tags in Wyoming under 90/10? And, if there is a reduction in the total number of tags, how does less non-resident elk hunters not equal less revenue from non-resident elk hunters? I mean obviously the tag price is going up, but beyond that, less people spending money is probably going to equal less money spent right?

Anyway, I have no intention of arguing the facts of 90/10 in Wyoming. I will totally defer to you on that Buzz. I don't intend to ever put in for a LQ elk tag up there, only general. Only pronghorn and deer LQ's and if 90/10 goes through before I get the chance to come up for deer, then probably just pronghorn.

Edited to change this last sentence to better reflect my point:

I guess my point was more the fact that I am here asking for help to figure out how I can be a better advocate for wildlife and you are more interested in arguing 90/10 with me when I already said that I have no issue with residents getting more of the tags.

Bolded part, that is EXACTLY right...there are lots of NR's arguing that they'll lose opportunity, they wont.

Read slowly...Regulation says, "NR's will be given 7,250 full priced elk tags in the initial draw".

The way it works, the LQ tags are drawn first, then the difference between the LQ elk tags and 7,250 is made up with NR full priced general elk tags.

So, that means right now, NR's are getting 7,250 full priced tags. Under 90-10 NR's would still get 7,250 full priced elk tags. No loss in GF revenue, no loss in economic prosperity for the local economies. IF you're goal is to just draw a general elk tag, you'll personally be better off with 90-10 as it puts more tags in the NR general pool.

Shall we now talk about NR region deer tags, where those will not be impacted by 90-10 as well?

What I'm (apparently unsuccessfully) trying to point out, is that the NR arguments that 90-10 is going to reduce GF funding, and take away opportunity, and have a negative economic impact...its all BS...and not true.

I wish that before people would gather facts first, then form opinion, then take action.

Its not that, its set hair on fire, run circles, and scream...

 

[Gr8bawana]

I think the east could easily support a larger elk herd then the rockies.

How are you going to get rid of all the humans currently occupying the eastern half of the country and deal with all of the mostly private land?

 

[Shangobango]

I wish that before people would gather facts first, then form opinion, then take action.

Fair point.

That is exactly what I am trying to do. Can’t speak for anyone else.

What I'm (apparently unsuccessfully) trying to point out, is that the NR arguments that 90-10 is going to reduce GF funding, and take away opportunity, and have a negative economic impact...its all BS...and not true.

In just Wyoming or in other States without statutes that dictate the total number of non-res tags as well?

 

[Ben Lamb]

How are you going to get rid of all the humans currently occupying the eastern half of the country and deal with all of the mostly private land?

 

[Shangobango]

View attachment 181298

Sometimes, just sometimes, after a long day out amongst the public, I have the thought that Thanos may have been on to something....

 

[ChaosOneZero]

Uhhh I didn't drive either...this technology thing makes it so you don't have to. And people still aren't showing up via easy technology. Pre-Covid they MAY have had an excuse...not now.

Agree that Residents need to step it up...bigely.

I don’t know that this is a valid critique. Don’t know about WY, but during the last Montana committee hearing, they wouldn’t even hear testimony from NRs (nor should they, in a lot of circumstances, wherein there is widespread interest and limited time).

 

[longbow51]

I wish that people would gather facts first, then form opinion, then take action.

Its not that, its set hair on fire, run circles, and scream...

Uh, you are talking about America in 2021, right?