Wildife Task force 90-10, etc.

[Flatrock]

Buzz,

This might be a tangent but with the enormous demand for tags by NRs, is there much talk of significantly raising prices on DEA tags? Maybe even on just the special tags? Like a 50-100% increase? It would be hard to blame Wyoming if they wanted to do that. They're losing millions, probably 10+ million in revenue. Can't imagine any R opposing that either.

 

[Wildabeest]

You want worse odds of drawing?

The allocation between preference and random will change.

I've heard the same thing my whole life, that the odds suck so bad nobody will buy points...and every time, more points are purchased. I buy them, and in some states I apply in they aren't even considered because not enough tags are issued to NR's to even have a preference tag issued. I just don't want worse odds...and even if there's a chance of points helping me, I'm buying them.

I hear people are going to quit applying if just one more license fee increase happens...we set another application record.

I hear people say the lower tier pronghorn tags aren't worth hunting..only 4 areas in the state have leftover licenses.

I hear people say the lower tier pronghorn tags aren't worth using points on...one area that I'm familiar with used to be OTC the day before you wanted to hunt, takes more than a point to draw.

Thanks for the rant Buzz. It was a serious question, which in all those words you neglected to answer. I’ll assume the answer is no. I guess we’ll wait and see after the change takes place as to whether there’s any drop off in point purchasing and if so how much. I’m in favor of 90/10. I just think it should be done with full understanding and planning for any tangential impacts. Thus the question.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Well I don’t know what point you are trying to make when my comments on elk hunting we’re talking about hunting in the future for new people to get into the sport. I highly doubt the same system will be in place in let’s say 10 years that there is now, supply and demand are the rule and there will always be a limited supply of game due to carrying capacity of what an area can support. I have no problem hunting cow elk and I have in Wyoming and hope to do so again next year. I just think unfortunately it will be hard to have new people enter this lifestyle when the opportunity won’t be there. Like I said earlier 20 years ago you could knock on doors around here and get permission to hunt about every time. I know a guy who just bought 500 acres and some guys from Texas have been leasing it for $20 acre to deer hunt. And they wanted to know what it would take to keep leasing it. and typing on my phone at work when I get a free minute sucks I need my iPad. I really could care less if I ever draw a tag again. I’d gladly give them up for my son to be able to get a tag and go hunting.

Your points are fair. In a decade the chance to hunt elk with decent odds of success may be far less than it is now. I’m just saying that chance is still there for some fair priced, public land hunts with reasonable odds of success right now, despite all that’s changed.

 

[cur dog]

Look at the commission reports...like I did.

I'm not really into doling out welfare to people too lazy to do their own work...but just this one time, I'll make an exception.

Based on current quotas:

Grizzly bear: $0
Sheep: $52,500
Goat: $20,100
Moose:$56,730
Bison: $61,708

Total: $191,038 (that number is also taking into account the Resident revenue gained from the 116 tags that Residents would gain.).

If Wyoming raised NR pronghorn does, based on 2020 quotas, from $34 to $50 it would generate $258,000.

We could raise Conservation licenses by $1 and generate $191,820

We could raise Resident annual fishing licenses by $3 and generate $222,540

Making up that money isn't an issue from the big-5 going 90-10.

Lost revenue is a joke...

No, not lazy at all. I just knew the guys pushing hardest for 90/10 would have that info in hand. I’ll be interested to see what increase will be adopted.

 

[cur dog]

Wildlife Task Force Set to Recommend 90/10 for Sheep, Goat, Moose, Grizzly, Bison — 307Hunter.com

Finally, a Win! (Maybe ...) I attended Day 1 and part of Day 2 of the 18-Member Wyoming Wildlife Taskforce initial meeting in Casper this week. Big news coming out of the Taskforce is it currently intends to forward a recommendation to the Legislature for the 2022 Session to implement 90/10 tag a

www.307hunter.com

Here's an interesting read! There's a lot more that's going on behind closed doors than some think! If anyone remembers what happened to nonres tags in New Mexico a few years back it could easily happen in Wyo the next couple years with public tags taken directly from those that like to DIY hunt! The below comments were copied directly from the link above!

Turns out more members of the Taskforce are in position to benefit financially from Wyoming's Wildlife than we originally thought. G&F Commissioner Brian Nesvik, for example, said his land qualified for landowner tags - though he's never applied for them. Pete Dube, current G&F Commission Chairman, appointed himself to the Taskforce and admitted he was a former outfitter.

As expected, the "Sportsmen" representatives on the Taskforce - Adam Teten, Josh Coursey, and Joe Schaffer, aren't strong and got steamrolled. On Wednesday, Day 1, they incredibly went along with the rest of the group to decide that any issue which receives the minimum 51% of the groups' approval would be forwarded to the Legislature as an "official" Taskforce recommendation. Given that at least 9 of the current 18-member Taskforce are either outfitters, landowners or both, why Teten, Coursey and Schaffer agreed to this is beyond me.

Definitely an interesting read.

 

[cur dog]

I have no doubt 90/10 will be in place for all big game species in the next few years. What concerns me is what happens after that. Outfitters will certainly cry foul. Look no further than the chit show going on in Montana this year. Money and influence generally prevail. In reality, I think 90/10 will really mean 5-6% of the NR tags will be available to the NR diy public land hunter.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz,

This might be a tangent but with the enormous demand for tags by NRs, is there much talk of significantly raising prices on DEA tags? Maybe even on just the special tags? Like a 50-100% increase? It would be hard to blame Wyoming if they wanted to do that. They're losing millions, probably 10+ million in revenue. Can't imagine any R opposing that either.

The only talk of raising fees that I've heard lately is to adjust fees somewhere between regular and special fees and market DEA tags in comparison to other surrounding states price wise.

No more tiered license fee structure would simplify the odds, never been a fan of the tiered license fees...one price for everyone makes sense.

Everything is on the table with the task force...but will be lucky if even 2-3 items are addressed.

However, that doesn't mean things can't change at the commission and legislative level...this task force isn't the end all, be all...

 

[BuzzH]

Thanks for the rant Buzz. It was a serious question, which in all those words you neglected to answer. I’ll assume the answer is no. I guess we’ll wait and see after the change takes place as to whether there’s any drop off in point purchasing and if so how much. I’m in favor of 90/10. I just think it should be done with full understanding and planning for any tangential impacts. Thus the question.

I gave you a serious answer...nobody knows but based on past history, we won't lose revenue.

Go look at the point levels and what group buys the most points...its all the GF website

 

[Shangobango]

The only talk of raising fees that I've heard lately is to adjust fees somewhere between regular and special fees and market DEA tags in comparison to other surrounding states price wise.

No more tiered license fee structure would simplify the odds, never been a fan of the tiered license fees...one price for everyone makes sense.

Everything is on the table with the task force...but will be lucky if even 2-3 items are addressed.

However, that doesn't mean things can't change at the commission and legislative level...this task force isn't the end all, be all...

I suppose that whatever numbers are settled on for the new tag prices for DEA would be at a price point that would still add to total revenue from license sales.

I guess what I am asking is would moving away from the tiered tag price be on the table if it was revenue neutral?

 

[GKimPrice]

First, I think that everyone (Hunters), believes that the residents of the State should have first dibs on the tags.

However, it seems to me that the only possible end result of this path would be that it will further limit the availability of NR tags, reduce access to hunt public land for NRs, thereby forcing those limited NR hunters to pay landowners and outfitters a substantial vig to hunt on private or publicly owned rancher leased property.

The State will have to charge more money to the NRs for those limited tags that the NR hunters do get, just to accommodate the revenue lost. The commissioners and politicians will be afraid to increase tag costs to residents of the State so they will have to find another way. They may have to rely on more federal funding (not paid for from WY residents), or the else the wildlife may suffer. Anytime you take government money you will have to pay a price in certain liberties. A more honest approach would be to pass that lost revenue into increased resident tag prices. Only then can a resident claim that they are really doing it for the benefit of the wildlife and not for their own self-interest.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course, but I for one do find it offensive when someone states that they deserve more tags because they have made sacrifies to live the outdoor lifestyle to live in a State with few employment opportunities, lower incomes and have a harsh climate. Those of you who think this is in for an awaking. I find it humurous that folks seem to think that they can altomatically qualify to make more money just because of where they live. Sure, there are increased min wages, but people can't live off of that in those areas. Most folks have to get by paycheck to paycheck with 2 -3 household jobs in these areas just to pay the taxes.

It must be obvious TO EVERYONE post Covid 19, that most folks can work remotely from anywhere. People no longer need to pay over $11,000- $12,000 a year for property taxes on a modest 2000 sq. ft home and pay HIGH State taxes in a developed area; because as previously stated, they can work from anywhere (including WY). An person who works a remote job on the East Coast can work from WY, start work acouple of hours earler in the day and be done in time to still get outdoors every day.

These people will be moving to WY and your State revenues will rise, taxes (including yours will rise), and services will get better. But those folks will bring all their baggage with them as well. Your States politics will start to reflect a merger of your ideas and the newcomers; you will resent it but won’t be able to stop it.

Very well thought out and written - Other things to think about are 1) point creep 2) legal challenges by NR's, it happened quite a while back in NM and AZ and it went to the SCOTUS, plaintiffs one ..... I've lived ( and watched some of the best resources on earth squandered and ruined) in Oregon for 70 years - want to talk of "creep" ? It ain't just for preference points

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

just remember your task force can only make recomendations to game and fish,,im sure when they pencil in the numbers and money,,money is going to be the factor..if you think about the resident population of the entire state of wyoming all combined,your only talking about 1/3 of the population of only portland oregon only,,not a large number,,so where are you gonna pull that money out of??? i dont blame wyoming residents for trying to push this,,but i think its a money factor for game and fish to figure out the value of all that non-resident money in tags,,apps,ect...good luck.

 

[JM77]

just remember your task force can only make recomendations to game and fish,,im sure when they pencil in the numbers and money,,money is going to be the factor..if you think about the resident population of the entire state of wyoming all combined,your only talking about 1/3 of the population of only portland oregon only,,not a large number,,so where are you gonna pull that money out of??? i dont blame wyoming residents for trying to push this,,but i think its a money factor for game and fish to figure out the value of all that non-resident money in tags,,apps,ect...good luck.

Go back and read some of the explanations from Buzz on revenue. It's not that hard at all. The real question is on money lost on the tourism side of things. With just the big 5 that won't be much anyway.

 

[Steve O]

I have no doubt 90/10 will be in place for all big game species in the next few years. What concerns me is what happens after that. Outfitters will certainly cry foul. Look no further than the chit show going on in Montana this year. Money and influence generally prevail. In reality, I think 90/10 will really mean 5-6% of the NR tags will be available to the NR diy public land hunter.

Don’t worry about the outfitters, they will get their “fair” share of tags. Whatever NR tag cuts are made, be sure the NR tag prices will go up double that to make sure no NR revenue is lost by that or any loss in point purchase revenue. I’m not a deep pockets guy, it was very easy to give up New Mexico with their latest NR screw job. I have too much invested in WY, so I’m going to have take whatever I’m given as a lowly undersireable ailien non residents.

 

[VAspeedgoat]

I'll admit that I have not followed this thread closely but I have one question. If tags for non resident antelope, deer and elk stay stable will there really be a huge drop off in revenue? I can't imagine that cutting tag numbers on the big 5 will have that big of an effect. Am I missing something?

 

[cur dog]

I'll admit that I have not followed this thread closely but I have one question. If tags for non resident antelope, deer and elk stay stable will there really be a huge drop off in revenue? I can't imagine that cutting tag numbers on the big 5 will have that big of an effect. Am I missing something?

The big 5 is just the beginning. Buzz and his pals have made that very clear.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

its very clear here,,buzz and his wyoming residents are for 90-10 for the most part and almost all non residents are against it and want to leave it as is,,nuff said..if wyoming doesnt need 82 pct of there income coming from non-residents,,and thats alot of cheese,,$$$$$,somehow the residents will have to fork for it.i would imagine there are at least some residents not wanting this also that rely on tourism dollars.

 

[BuzzH]

its very clear here,,buzz and his wyoming residents are for 90-10 for the most part and almost all non residents are against it and want to leave it as is,,nuff said..if wyoming doesnt need 82 pct of there income coming from non-residents,,and thats alot of cheese,,$$$$$,somehow the residents will have to fork for it.i would imagine there are at least some residents not wanting this also that rely on tourism dollars.

Two posts in row you don't have the facts right...and that's a big part of the problem.

First post, the recommendations are NOT going to the GF Department. They are going to the commission if its something the commission can deal with in regulation. If not, its going to the Legislature.

The last post isn't close to true either, NR's do NOT pay for 82% of the funding for the game and fish.

People confuse license revenue with all funding.

I've already posted how easy it is to raise additional funding...won't repeat it.

As far as those relying on hunting tourism dollars, when restaurants, hotels, gas stations, outfitter, etc. that rely partially on hunting for revenue, I don't worry about them. They've been on the dole and a free ride for wayyyyy too long. When they contribute a penny to GF management or State Lands Management, it will be their first.

They want a seat at the table, they want consideration on NR allocations...start paying for the seat. If not, be happy with what you've received, for providing absolutely nothing for that windfall.

Finally, it seems to me that AZ, NV, ND, SD, MT, UT, etc. etc. all manage just fine with 90-10 (or less) of their tags going to NR's.

Wyoming will get along just fine.

 

[Buffs35]

Two posts in row you don't have the facts right...and that's a big part of the problem.

First post, the recommendations are NOT going to the GF Department. They are going to the commission if its something the commission can deal with in regulation. If not, its going to the Legislature.

The last post isn't close to true either, NR's do NOT pay for 82% of the funding for the game and fish.

People confuse license revenue with all funding.

I've already posted how easy it is to raise additional funding...won't repeat it.

As far as those relying on hunting tourism dollars, when restaurants, hotels, gas stations, outfitter, etc. that rely partially on hunting for revenue, I don't worry about them. They've been on the dole and a free ride for wayyyyy too long. When they contribute a penny to GF management or State Lands Management, it will be their first.

They want a seat at the table, they want consideration on NR allocations...start paying for the seat. If not, be happy with what you've received, for providing absolutely nothing for that windfall.

Finally, it seems to me that AZ, NV, ND, SD, MT, UT, etc. etc. all manage just fine with 90-10 (or less) of their tags going to NR's.

Wyoming will get along just fine.

I was told there would be no facts. What a Buzz kill...

 

[jimss]

 

[jimss]

If 1/2 of the limited tags are taken from nonres that is a heck of a lot of revenue that the WG&F "banks on" every year! It's really nothing more than a gamble that this revenue loss will be made up for by selling nonres left over and doe tags. If it takes twice as long for nonres to draw tags a lot of nonres will likely draw tags and quit paying expensive pref pt fees. Other nonres likely won't start applying for limited tags when draw odds dramatically leap. With so few tags offered to nonres and high pref pt fees why start applying for tags with insane draw odds?

To top it off, there is no guarantee the revenue losses by cutting nonres tags in 1/2 will be made up for by selling 2nd choice and doe/cow tags. 2021 is a great example. Almost 0 2nd choice buck tags are issued after the first draw and doe tags have been cut or eliminated in almost every antelope unit in Wyo. In years with bad winterkill there could potentially be 0 2nd choice and 0 doe tags offered so no revenue to make up for cutting nonres limited tags in 1/2!

There are great options to draw tags in neighboring states like Colo where 35% of limited tags are offered to nonres and nonres can hunt elk every year!