ida homer
Well-known member
Yah ask Idaho how that has panned out for them in regards to that 10% cap and not giving NR's their stupid point. The department is hurtin.
WY NR hunters bend over...
- Thread starter BuzzH
- Start date
Yah ask Idaho how that has panned out for them in regards to that 10% cap and not giving NR's their stupid point. The department is hurtin.
The 10% cap was already in place. I think 10% is the right number for most states.
PPs had nothing to do with the decline in revenue.
Idaho Legislature created it's own perfect storm by raising NR prices during the middle of the recession and the peak of the wolf debate. NRs abandoned ID because of the fee increase and the decline in animals due to wolves.
Idaho should have raised resident fees in 2009 as requested by IDF&G.
The F&G will lose in this as much as the NR hunters if they are too stupid to look at other states that have lost revenues by over tapping the NR. I think a lot of guys would drop out of the point buying every year if odds of drawing decrease that much.
RUT JUNKEY
Well-known member
Agree and feel the same way. I can take a little increase here and there if it actually helps. . .the availability of tags is the draw for people to choose Wyoming in my opinion.
hunt1up
Active member
In 2012, there were 69,110 elk licenses sold. 12,021 were NRs, roughly 17% of the tags.
Knock that down to 10% and that would be 6,911 NR elk hunters.
That's 5,110 NRs that spend a bunch of money being replaced by residents that spend little.
I know I can easily spend $2,000-3,000 on a out-of-state elk hunt. If those 5,110 guys are like me then that's some serious small town revenue not being spent.
Plus the other species as well.
Knock that down to 10% and that would be 6,911 NR elk hunters.
That's 5,110 NRs that spend a bunch of money being replaced by residents that spend little.
I know I can easily spend $2,000-3,000 on a out-of-state elk hunt. If those 5,110 guys are like me then that's some serious small town revenue not being spent.
Plus the other species as well.
I support state rights to set non-resident quotas as they see fit. That said, it chaps me a bit to think of how much I have spent on preference points the last 11 years, which would essentially be worthless under the proposed quotas.
Here's what the sheep tag quotas look like now, and under the proposed allocation:
And here's how many non-residents are applying for sheep:
Over 7,800 non-residents applying, and paying $100 a year for a point. If you tell the approximately 6,500 people with less than 12 points that they are vying for 2 tags, and they will never come close to drawing a preference point tag, how many do you think will keep paying $100 a year?
I have 11 sheep points in WY that have cost me over $900. They will be essentially worthless under the proposed allocations.
Here's what the sheep tag quotas look like now, and under the proposed allocation:
And here's how many non-residents are applying for sheep:
Over 7,800 non-residents applying, and paying $100 a year for a point. If you tell the approximately 6,500 people with less than 12 points that they are vying for 2 tags, and they will never come close to drawing a preference point tag, how many do you think will keep paying $100 a year?
I have 11 sheep points in WY that have cost me over $900. They will be essentially worthless under the proposed allocations.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
I am a wyo resident and I support the Bill however I suggested changes so that the 10% allocation change only affects sheep and moose. There is no reason to allocate more tags to residents for elk, deer and antelope. There are already plenty of opportunities for quality hunts every year for those species. Anyone that says different is not trying very hard. I think that for the high demand, low availability species the PP system is not sustainable. It will need to be changed. Personally, I think all tags should be on a random draw. Since that Bill is not being floated I will support the next best thing. Over the last 20 years I have bounced between living in Wyo and in other states. Odds at drawing a sheep tag were better as a NR. This will not make it significantly better but the only other variable to change is total tag numbers and I doubt we want to start thinning the herds.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I think Oak knocked it out of the park with his post.
While I also agree that States should have the right to distribute wildlife resources as they see fit...I cant get excited nor support this kind of bill.
Mainly because, once again, the rules and goal posts change after 18-19 years.
Just like Oak said, he could have saved himself a nice pile of cash not applying for points the last 11 years that will make them essentially worthless if this were to pass.
While this bill was killed, I can assure you that the residents are going to continue this route until they have a bigger percentage of tags, and in particular the moose, sheep, goat, and bison. More than likely once that falls, you can bet the higher demand pronghorn, elk, and deer will be next.
I just flat dont understand the selfish behavior and the entitlement attitude thats constantly creating these kinds of "solutions"...
Also tough to believe that so many of the Resident hunters are so unwilling to share the resource with their NR counter-parts.
It really is unbelievable to me.
While I also agree that States should have the right to distribute wildlife resources as they see fit...I cant get excited nor support this kind of bill.
Mainly because, once again, the rules and goal posts change after 18-19 years.
Just like Oak said, he could have saved himself a nice pile of cash not applying for points the last 11 years that will make them essentially worthless if this were to pass.
While this bill was killed, I can assure you that the residents are going to continue this route until they have a bigger percentage of tags, and in particular the moose, sheep, goat, and bison. More than likely once that falls, you can bet the higher demand pronghorn, elk, and deer will be next.
I just flat dont understand the selfish behavior and the entitlement attitude thats constantly creating these kinds of "solutions"...
Also tough to believe that so many of the Resident hunters are so unwilling to share the resource with their NR counter-parts.
It really is unbelievable to me.
rmyoung1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,330
I must be a little slow but I don't understand how the outfitter lobby can get behind the increase in Special licenses. How does it benefit them to have NRs pay more for a license? It's not like those Special licenses are guaranteed through outfitters or something. If anything, I would think that outfitters would be against a NR increase for fear that it would motivate potential clients to look elsewhere.
Can someone explain?
Steelhead
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 701
Hijack!! Has anyone ever taken a look at WA's crappy nonresident system and how much money we're losing on the deal??
Utah did a similar thing and lost all my support. I had 10 or 11 moose points and when they allowed NR to apply and get points for every species I said screw it and dropped out.
I paid this money every year in WY knowing fully that I should only have to do it for 10 years or a little more to draw a tag and now they would be screwing me hard if they do this. If I knew they were going to do this I would have been far better paying an outfitter in Canada a long time ago to hunt moose. This is wrong.
I paid this money every year in WY knowing fully that I should only have to do it for 10 years or a little more to draw a tag and now they would be screwing me hard if they do this. If I knew they were going to do this I would have been far better paying an outfitter in Canada a long time ago to hunt moose. This is wrong.
Wow...did the Maryland legislature take over in WY? I thought our elected officials were the only idiots.
I agree with Buzz's post and am only thankful that WY is one of the few states I haven't been accumulating sheep and moose points. If the new system is passed it will certainly thin the ranks of non resident applicants.
I have hunted in Wyoming several times and can't help but agree with some of the others who question the economic impact of such changes. Not that the locals don't spend money, but the tourists coming thru must leave plenty of greenbacks behind as well.
I agree with Buzz's post and am only thankful that WY is one of the few states I haven't been accumulating sheep and moose points. If the new system is passed it will certainly thin the ranks of non resident applicants.
I have hunted in Wyoming several times and can't help but agree with some of the others who question the economic impact of such changes. Not that the locals don't spend money, but the tourists coming thru must leave plenty of greenbacks behind as well.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Buzz,
I get a kick out of the thought that just because an individual supports a change in tag allocations they are selfish and characterized as unwilling to share. It's not hard to figure out why compromise in the world of politics is so hard to come by when we quickly demonize anyone that disagrees with us.
I certainly understand your argument of moving the goal posts so far into it but I don't think you can argue that the current system for sheep and moose is solid and should never be altered. Perhaps there are better ways to change the system and I am willing to listen to any ideas. Many parts of the tag system change as time goes on. Price, number of tags, unit boundaries, PP systems, hunt dates, etc. Why is tag allocation a sacred cow that should never be touched?
I get a kick out of the thought that just because an individual supports a change in tag allocations they are selfish and characterized as unwilling to share. It's not hard to figure out why compromise in the world of politics is so hard to come by when we quickly demonize anyone that disagrees with us.
I certainly understand your argument of moving the goal posts so far into it but I don't think you can argue that the current system for sheep and moose is solid and should never be altered. Perhaps there are better ways to change the system and I am willing to listen to any ideas. Many parts of the tag system change as time goes on. Price, number of tags, unit boundaries, PP systems, hunt dates, etc. Why is tag allocation a sacred cow that should never be touched?
Because when you take cash from your customers and lead them on thinking they have a chance to draw in X amount of years it is a screwing. If they wanted a 10% cap they should have did it when they started taking cash for points, even more so when the point system was only good enough for the NR on species. Not to mention they also take cash for only a point that gives the impression that they were offering nothing more than better odds for the money.
Mulecreek, do you have over $1000 invested in just one species in another state's bonus points? My guess is not.
Not to mention the financial loss that will take place in an already strapped F&G when hunters drop out of buying points, and it will happen with many who are good at math and have far less than max points.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Schmalts,
I do not have over $1000 in points in any one state for any one animal. I can also say that if I was still a NR in Wyo then I would not like this one bit. But I do not buy the argument that because 20% is the number that was first used it can never be changed. I don't assume that I know what the perfect number and if it stayed at 20% I would remain a happy man but I can tell you if we continue down the path of "never change anything because it wont work for me" then we will continue to have a broken system. I am sitting on 14 PP for sheep in wyo and if a bill was floated today to change it to completely random draw I would support that is a heartbeat.
I do not have over $1000 in points in any one state for any one animal. I can also say that if I was still a NR in Wyo then I would not like this one bit. But I do not buy the argument that because 20% is the number that was first used it can never be changed. I don't assume that I know what the perfect number and if it stayed at 20% I would remain a happy man but I can tell you if we continue down the path of "never change anything because it wont work for me" then we will continue to have a broken system. I am sitting on 14 PP for sheep in wyo and if a bill was floated today to change it to completely random draw I would support that is a heartbeat.
"I am sitting on 14 PP for sheep in wyo and if a bill was floated to change it to a completely random draw I would support that in a heartbeat"
What does that mean? I would take a beating but I don't have to because you are going to take it for me?
What does that mean? I would take a beating but I don't have to because you are going to take it for me?
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
It means that I think all PP systems are crap and should be done away with. This is the fundamental flaw in the system. It has nothing to do with who would or would not take a beating
So let me get this straight: the Wyoming Game & Fish is strapped financially (long term) and cutting access programs, overflights and fisheries programs, and these guys think reducing the NR revenue stream by 50% is a good thing?
If i were cynical, and I am, I would think this is more about breaking WGFD's back and pushing them into a Utah model more than it is about anything else. Especially after seeing some of this brain trust in action.
They're banking on residents supporting this. If i were a resident of WY, i would be pretty pissed off at how the Legislature is dealing woth hunters & anglers.
If i were cynical, and I am, I would think this is more about breaking WGFD's back and pushing them into a Utah model more than it is about anything else. Especially after seeing some of this brain trust in action.
They're banking on residents supporting this. If i were a resident of WY, i would be pretty pissed off at how the Legislature is dealing woth hunters & anglers.
Similar threads
