Task force $1,950 NR elk tag

[seeth07]

Because public trust wildlife isn't a freaking commodity and shouldn't be treated as such

The key thing that is wrong with that statement is the true fact that to a State Nonresident, the "freaking commodity" is indeed a "freaking commodity" when it comes to being able to hunt and harvest.

No state really ever stops a nonresident from going there, hiking, viewing, etc to enjoy that "freaking commodity" (few exceptions I know of). It's a "privledge" that doesn't at all need to be granted.

So make the non resident tags match market and what market will pay. Good for you Wyoming.

 

[woods89]

A contrarian opinion (from a nonresident who is admittedly unfazed by this modest increase):

1) nonstop griping for years about point creep being absolutely unstoppable and how evil point systems are and how we should just burn the system down…when an obvious solution exists
2) a capitalist proposal surfaces in a popular western state to address the issue (ie, jack up rates to meet demand…does anyone think these won’t sell out, and once they do, that other states won’t realize that the market value of a bull elk tag is closer to $2k than $1k?)
3) cue weeping and gnashing of teeth from people who can’t afford it…

Nonresident hunting like mad had its moment. Promoters (Rinella, Newberg, GoHunt, Huntin Fool, etc) made plenty of $ hawking the adventure and accessibility.

A simple scenario: white collar working dude in East or Midwest who makes $150k (that’s not rich in an urban environment)…burns 7 days vacation to come west. Granted he’s still getting paid but the economic value of his time is just over $4k…that’s just what his time is worth. Gas = $1k, hotels/meals = $1k, tag = $1k. He’s at $7k. Would a 14% increase in his trip (tag price going from $1k to $2k) really affect him? Nope. Would it actually be nice because it increases his chances of getting a tag each year by pricing out the blue collars? Yup. Is it long term bad because it decreases ‘advocacy’? Arguably…I’ve been calling bullshit on R3 for ages. It’s mostly there to sell more overpriced gear. 90+% of people are just there to kill. They’re not advocates.

I wish states would start charging $10k down just to apply for a sheep tag. Keep out the riffraff. Let the market drive the bus. If you want a seat, get some cash together. That’s where it is going folks. Some of us can afford it. In a world of diminishing opportunities, getting used to disappointment is a healthy skill to develop.

That's how they do it in Europe, right?

A 2k elk tag would make things tough for me. I'm self employed, so revenue shuts down while I'm gone. I make quite a bit less than 150k a year. I am married, my wife is a stay at home mom, and I have 4 kids. I already take packed lunches to work 5 days a week. I don't drink, smoke, or chew. Most of my gear is used.

I'm not trying to work up sympathy here, because my life is wonderful in many ways. My business is growing and becoming more profitable, so maybe in a few years a 2k elk tag will be feasible, who knows. But for right now, $750 for a CO license works, but 2k would probably price me out, at least for every other year like I have been doing.

Maybe prices need to go up. I'm not going to say they need to stay low just for me. But it does seem like every year things get a little tougher for a blue collar guy who likes to elk hunt once in a while.

 

[seeth07]

For what it's worth, this $1950 price just about prices me out. It's a rediculous price for an elk hunt to get some horns and meat when you can skip the horns for a whole lot less.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

It’s crazy how history repeats itself when people are too dumb to realize it’s happening

 

[np307]

The key thing that is wrong with that statement is the true fact that to a State Nonresident, the "freaking commodity" is indeed a "freaking commodity" when it comes to being able to hunt and harvest.

No state really ever stops a nonresident from going there, hiking, viewing, etc to enjoy that "freaking commodity" (few exceptions I know of). It's a "privledge" that doesn't at all need to be granted.

So make the non resident tags match market and what market will pay. Good for you Wyoming.

I think that's a poor understanding of the NA model.

 

[rwc101]

Anything that can be commercialized is a commodity. The question is should we exploit the commodity for maximum gain.

 

[seeth07]

Anything that can be commercialized is a commodity. The question is should we exploit the commodity for maximum gain.

This guy gets the point

 

[Bigjay73]

I think point creep will go crazy in the regular and probably drop for some in the special. Soonest it would go into effect is 2024.

No idea about 90/10.

The one we have drive a stake into that will be open for comment is going from 60-40 regular/special to 50-50...I think we can slay that monster with some effort.

You don't need to answer, maybe I missed it in another post, are you for or against the price increase?

 

[madtom]

The weirdest part to me is the arbitrary means at arriving at the new prices. Couldn’t they just set it to match inflation, average neighboring states, etc?

 

[BuzzH]

A contrarian opinion (from a nonresident who is admittedly unfazed by this modest increase):

1) nonstop griping for years about point creep being absolutely unstoppable and how evil point systems are and how we should just burn the system down…when an obvious solution exists
2) a capitalist proposal surfaces in a popular western state to address the issue (ie, jack up rates to meet demand…does anyone think these won’t sell out, and once they do, that other states won’t realize that the market value of a bull elk tag is closer to $2k than $1k?)
3) cue weeping and gnashing of teeth from people who can’t afford it…

Nonresident hunting like mad had its moment. Promoters (Rinella, Newberg, GoHunt, Huntin Fool, etc) made plenty of $ hawking the adventure and accessibility.

A simple scenario: white collar working dude in East or Midwest who makes $150k (that’s not rich in an urban environment)…burns 7 days vacation to come west. Granted he’s still getting paid but the economic value of his time is just over $4k…that’s just what his time is worth. Gas = $1k, hotels/meals = $1k, tag = $1k. He’s at $7k. Would a 14% increase in his trip (tag price going from $1k to $2k) really affect him? Nope. Would it actually be nice because it increases his chances of getting a tag each year by pricing out the blue collars? Yup. Is it long term bad because it decreases ‘advocacy’? Arguably…I’ve been calling bullshit on R3 for ages. It’s mostly there to sell more overpriced gear. 90+% of people are just there to kill. They’re not advocates.

I wish states would start charging $10k down just to apply for a sheep tag. Keep out the riffraff. Let the market drive the bus. If you want a seat, get some cash together. That’s where it is going folks. Some of us can afford it. In a world of diminishing opportunities, getting used to disappointment is a healthy skill to develop.

So I guess the North American Model, which everyone likes to brag about as the "best model in the world" just means nothing?

You realize what one of the tenets is correct? You know keeping a public trust asset as accessible as possible to those its held in trust for.

If we're going to ignore the "best wildlife management model in the world" then fold up shop and make every tag go to the highest bidder.

While we're at it, lets go full on Capitalism and privatize the profits associated with wildlife assets too. I'm sure we can find a good way to socialize the costs of the management and losses as well.

What a joke...

 

[BuzzH]

You don't need to answer, maybe I missed it in another post, are you for or against the price increase?

Opposed...there's no reason for the increase when the GF is in no threat of not having enough money to fund management. They have a years worth of reserves.

If it gets to the point of the GF having an honest budget short fall, it shouldn't all fall on the backs of the NR's. Residents should pony up for those shortfalls as well.

Making it even more ridiculous is that all this is, is just another outfitter give-away that "puts predictability into our business".

Its a joke...and making it even a bigger joke is that outfitters pay exactly ZERO to the GF for management. Not a single thin dime.

 

[Bigjay73]

Maybe this is why Wyoming G&F has a surplus of funds, and CPW is millions in the red

 

[rwc101]

Pricing it at $1950 instead of $2000 is like gas stations charging 9/10th of a penny.

 

[seeth07]

Opposed...there's no reason for the increase when the GF is in no threat of not having enough money to fund management. They have a years worth of reserves.

If it gets the point of the GF having an honest budget short fall it shouldn't all fall on the backs of the NR's. Residents should pony up for those shortfalls as well.

Making it even more ridiculous is that all this is, is just another outfitter give-away that "puts predictability into our business".

Its a joke.

In all seriousness, do you know why WY g&f isn't using thar surplus and potentionally more from something like this to open up for hmas or habitat projects to try and get more critters on the ground in areas that are under objective?

 

[Cheesehead]

Because public trust wildlife isn't a freaking commodity and shouldn't be treated as such

The difference between the world as it is and how one would like it to be is sometimes unsettling.

Of course it’s a commodity.

Public land timber, public land grazing rights, public land water access…public land wildlife…they in reality are all commodities.

 

[BuzzH]

In all seriousness, do you know why WY g&f isn't using thar surplus and potentionally more from something like this to open up for hmas or habitat projects to try and get more critters on the ground in areas that are under objective?

Because the HMA program is also flush with cash and they don't pay enough to compete with outfitters leasing.

Oh don't you worry, the outfitters make sure the R legislature keeps those HMA payments low enough to not outcompete an outfitter for a lease.

 

[np307]

The difference between the world as it is and how one would like it to be is sometimes unsettling.

Of course it’s a commodity.

Public land timber, public land grazing rights, public land water access…public land wildlife…they in reality are all commodities.

The only thing unsettling is when people throw their hands up and say "who cares? I can pay and it will help me draw better tags"

 

[BuzzH]

The difference between the world as it is and how one would like it to be is sometimes unsettling.

Of course it’s a commodity.

Public land timber, public land grazing rights, public land water access…public land wildlife…they in reality are all commodities.

You need to study up.

First off public land grazing is not a right, its a privilege that can be revoked. Secondly, its been interfered with to keep fees at $1.35 AUM and so far away from anything remotely resembling capitalism its laughable.

Public land water is wrong too, the water is usually a State asset.

Public land wildlife is also not true either, where that wildlife lives State, Federal, or Private land makes no difference. All wildlife, regardless of land ownership, is held in trust for the citizens of the state it resides in.

Public trust wildlife assets should not be managed as a for profit business.

 

[Scott85]

Congress should increase the cost of permits for outfitters under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. Let’s go from 3% to 10%.

 

[Bigjay73]

The only thing unsettling is when people throw their hands up and say "who cares? I can pay and it will help me draw better tags"

I don't think it's a "who cares" attitude as much as a realization that there's not a thing we can do about it, may as well learn to adjust for it. Getting upset about it isn't gonna put a tag in your pocket.