There are items that need fixed in the ID draw - third party purchases, allowing multiple log ins, no party tags - but if they’re fixed it’s a good system. Live draw happening before your eyes.
Devaluing Non-Residents
- Thread starter rjthehunter
- Start date
- Status
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Fix all that and I won’t bitch….maybe. I mean, I have to reserve the right the complain.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
The problem I have with this is it’s not a matter of determining price elasticity, as your chart would suggest. It’s more an exercise in game theory- I do x counter does y. If they just wanted to maximize revenue in a single year, there are easier methods. They might want to stabilize revenue while simultaneously trying to maximize it. Completely different game.
FREAK
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2022
- Messages
- 772
I think the changes were made based on basic supply and demand principles personally. Do I think we'll see the special really be that much different than the regular in a few years..probably not. But I think they have pretty easy data points to justify the price increase.
Fee Hikes for Wyoming Nonresident Special Tags Explained
Wyoming HB 200 is now law and will substantially increase the cost of Wyoming nonresident tags starting in January 2024. We break it down.
freerangeamerican.us
"Gilliland provided some insight into the actual numbers: In the 2022 nonresident elk application period, the Wyoming Game & Fish Department received more than 30,000 applications for 7,250 total nonresident full-price licenses.
Demand far outstripped supply, and if you paid attention in Economics 101, that means that Wyoming’s elk licenses are way underpriced.
The goal of the price increase for the special draw under HB 200 is to have fewer people applying for the special draw, which will rebalance the odds benefit that was established in 1989.
Like any business, it makes sense to price your product as high as the market will bear. HB 200 will push the envelope of just how much the market is willing to bear."
rjthehunter
Well-known member
Why do they continue to raise NR prices then? It's just a middle finger to people who are supporting the state and local businesses...
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Reposting your tables @Oak because they deserve to be seen again.
The fact that several NR on this very thread can look at these numbers, coupled with the drastic increases in NR demand over the same time period, and then keep right on trucking with the “I don’t get enough opportunity”, is exactly why NR shouldn’t get a bigger slice of the pie IMO. They are disturbingly clueless (or careless, not sure which) about current wildlife population trends and the management of threats to those populations in the West. There still seems to be this weird Frontier mentality that animals are unlimited, shoot all you want, residents are just greedy…blah blah blah. The above type of population decline is observable in many big game species in most Western States, and should be really f-ing alarming to anyone, R or NR. If we keep on this trend, no one will be hunting anything, regardless of residency down the road.
To suggest, as many on here seem to be, that your NR “advocacy” is dependent on residents pimping out the declining remains of our dwindling herds just so you can shoot stuff more frequently and on the cheap is why residents will continue to tell you to pound sand. That type of “advocacy” is rarely valuable, and isn’t worth the cost IMO.
Alright, back to my self imposed exile…
The fact that several NR on this very thread can look at these numbers, coupled with the drastic increases in NR demand over the same time period, and then keep right on trucking with the “I don’t get enough opportunity”, is exactly why NR shouldn’t get a bigger slice of the pie IMO. They are disturbingly clueless (or careless, not sure which) about current wildlife population trends and the management of threats to those populations in the West. There still seems to be this weird Frontier mentality that animals are unlimited, shoot all you want, residents are just greedy…blah blah blah. The above type of population decline is observable in many big game species in most Western States, and should be really f-ing alarming to anyone, R or NR. If we keep on this trend, no one will be hunting anything, regardless of residency down the road.
To suggest, as many on here seem to be, that your NR “advocacy” is dependent on residents pimping out the declining remains of our dwindling herds just so you can shoot stuff more frequently and on the cheap is why residents will continue to tell you to pound sand. That type of “advocacy” is rarely valuable, and isn’t worth the cost IMO.
Alright, back to my self imposed exile…
Nick87
Well-known member
I definitely don't think they do it to as a middle finger. They do it because people are willing to pay it. I'm sure if tags were to go unsold the price increases would stop. Until then....
Last edited:
seeth07
Well-known member
I really don't think the relationship between NR prices and the state game agency needing/wanting more money are related. I'm with you.
hunter49
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2023
- Messages
- 34
A few things that come to mind that I see being repeated, that I wish would stop.
NR -You liscense revenue is not enough to show u care. Need to show up to help with conservation efforts.
Know personally I spend thousands a year in my home state on local conservation efforts. Native prairie restoration, pollinator habitat, shrub plantings for migratory birds and invasive control to name a few of the many projects. And I'm sure there are alot of other conservation minded individuals that focus on what they can control around them as well.
Conservation efforts are not cheap. The dollars that NR bring in should provide the resources needed to implement projects that should make a tangible difference. But guessing most of those dollars are going to Gov overhead and waste.
Third part is logistics. Makes more sense to put dollars to work locally than to try and bring outside help in.
The other part that rubs me the wrong way is the montiezation of wildlife going to the highest bidder. Just because someone is well off shouldn't give them better draw odds.
NR -You liscense revenue is not enough to show u care. Need to show up to help with conservation efforts.
Know personally I spend thousands a year in my home state on local conservation efforts. Native prairie restoration, pollinator habitat, shrub plantings for migratory birds and invasive control to name a few of the many projects. And I'm sure there are alot of other conservation minded individuals that focus on what they can control around them as well.
Conservation efforts are not cheap. The dollars that NR bring in should provide the resources needed to implement projects that should make a tangible difference. But guessing most of those dollars are going to Gov overhead and waste.
Third part is logistics. Makes more sense to put dollars to work locally than to try and bring outside help in.
The other part that rubs me the wrong way is the montiezation of wildlife going to the highest bidder. Just because someone is well off shouldn't give them better draw odds.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I am a dyed in the wool and unapologetic capitalist, but it bugs me when we talk about government charging "market rate" for access to the public commons. A state govt charging more for out of state users (colleges or hunters) to make up for the amounts the residents have subsidized through their taxes is fine. But putting up a price curve (R or NR) on any public goods is ridiculous. All it does is price out those who benefit the least from the broader economic system from the very "goods" they are told they share.
rjthehunter
Well-known member
Again, I don't think anyone is calling for more tags overall. It's not the topic of the article. It's more about the continuous price increases mostly. Isn't it up to the biologists to determine the number of tags that should be given out?
But I'll bite regardless.
Haven't NR numbers been decreasing for deer hunting in Wyoming? I don't see anyone calling to "pimp out" the remaining deer in WY. Maybe WY should stop "pimping out" their deer and quit selling so many R & NR tags. Obviously taking care of the herds is top priority to giving out tags. Do you expect hunters to do their own surveys and decide how many tags should be issued? I think WGFD should use some of that NR money to figure out what limits need to be placed on deer hunters to grow the herd. The people to blame are not the non residents. Offer a tag, and people will hunt it...
Looks to me like both resident and non resident numbers are declining, along with the herd numbers. Interesting that the blame is being placed on the non residents...
Elk hunters have increased slightly in the past 20 years for both residents and non residents.
I'm not sure where the conclusion of NR being the issue stemmed from.
Nick87
Well-known member
I agree with what your saying it definitely does price some out. I'm not in favor of making hunting a rich mans game (it's already too late). Some would argue that hunting is a privilege not a right. That I do remember from hunter safety many years ago.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
If you believe any state is charging "market rate" for tags through the public draw, you need to recheck your math.
When was the last time Colorado dow charged $600,000 through the public draw for a sheep tag? Or MTFWP $300,000 for a sheep tag issued through a draw?
Both of those states as an example, are severely underselling the market rate to those tags every time they issue one through the public draw.
Same with nearly all tags for all species in the West.
Hilljackoutlaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 6,093
SUPPORTING?! LOL.
You give us NRs a lot of credit.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Chill out - I was referring to those who suggest that is the right answer as a threat to those that question tag costs. The "be thankful you aren't paying market, if you did it would be $5,000" reaction is like "be glad you can drive your car on a city street, we could charge you $1,000". It suggests a straw alternative that violates any sense of proper government function and a move to flat out sale of wildlife.
As an aside, do you have a mode of interacting with others where you try to find a reading that doesn't boil your blood and cause a keyboard warrior lash out? It really is silly and all too predictable. We all get out over our skis sometimes, but for god's sake, not every single response needs to go to 11, make it personal and use hyperbole beyond any reason. It really does seriously undercut your otherwise earned credibility.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I only believe in negative rights as the proper role of govt. so in that sense I fully agree hunting is not a right. But that's no reason to unreasonably distribute a public good on the grounds of "highest price".
Hilljackoutlaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 6,093
Mallardsx2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,611
You are freaking ridiculous.
rjthehunter
Well-known member
Hilljackoutlaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 6,093
If you don't show up this year. Someone already took your place. Hopefully a less entitled wind bag for the sake of the shop owners you have kept in business over the years.
- Status
