WY preference point increase

[Forkyfinder]

I hear what you’re saying- I too miss the good ol’ days. States have decided on a different path, and it would be foolish to not try to skate to where the puck is going.

Good god man - you're crazy on this stuff.

What do you think draw odds would be like if it was "cheap" to hunt as a NR?

 

[sigpros]

It will make people get out of some things but when you think about it the deer point almost doubled and antelope point is now going to be over double. I bet 50% of the point holders don't drop out of those 2 species so they will still make money. The elk point seems to be the easiest to swallow price wise for what Wyoming offers. But I feel we are headed down the path to loosing a lot of future and young hunters. Example: 22 year old kid starts working somewhere and gets talking to a guy who tells him about when he used to go elk hunting all the time and how awesome it was. Kid looks into it and sees he has to buy a $75 point for 10 years to buy what could be a $1K general elk tag to go and see if he likes elk hunting. Kind of like farming, people don't understand why the younger generation doesn't want to get into farming well young people can't get a loan on $10K an acre ground and buy the equipment and make it.

 

[Treeshark]

What do you think draw odds would be like if it was "cheap" to hunt as a NR?

Way crappier than they are now- that’s why I’m saying some states (especially WY) should make it more expensive for NRs- like way more expensive.

It’s not like they won’t still sell out, and NR hunters could go more often if it was a priority to them.

Wyoming increasing the price for NR preference points was a good business decision in my opinion- my point is there is more runway if they choose to take it, and I bet they will in the next few years.

 

[wytex]

It will make people get out of some things but when you think about it the deer point almost doubled and antelope point is now going to be over double. I bet 50% of the point holders don't drop out of those 2 species so they will still make money. The elk point seems to be the easiest to swallow price wise for what Wyoming offers. But I feel we are headed down the path to loosing a lot of future and young hunters. Example: 22 year old kid starts working somewhere and gets talking to a guy who tells him about when he used to go elk hunting all the time and how awesome it was. Kid looks into it and sees he has to buy a $75 point for 10 years to buy what could be a $1K general elk tag to go and see if he likes elk hunting. Kind of like farming, people don't understand why the younger generation doesn't want to get into farming well young people can't get a loan on $10K an acre ground and buy the equipment and make it.

Why can't that 22 year old go buy a reduced price cow elk license to see if he likes elk hunting?????
No need to buy a PP for 10 years to go elk hunting.

 

[TOGIE]

The good old days are gone because of increasing demand and shrinking supply. Two things unrelated to any so called “business model of conservation” or whatever it’s being called

 

[Treeshark]

“business model of conservation”

*Business Model of Conservation (BCM)

 

[Dave N]

Way crappier than they are now- that’s why I’m saying some states (especially WY) should make it more expensive for NRs- like way more expensive.

It’s not like they won’t still sell out, and NR hunters could go more often if it was a priority to them.

Wyoming increasing the price for NR preference points was a good business decision in my opinion- my point is there is more runway if they choose to take it, and I bet they will in the next few years.

If it's strictly "business", why not raise R prices? More money is more money, right?

 

[Treeshark]

If it's strictly "business", why not raise R prices? More money is more money, right?

Because residents can vote in state elections.

Alienating your boss (in this case, the voters) would not be a good business decision.

 

[Matthew57]

Because residents can vote in state elections.

That’s the only reason not to make hunting a thing only for the rich?

 

[Treeshark]

That’s the only reason not to make hunting a thing only for the rich?

I’m not sure what you are talking about.

There are ample low-cost resident, youth and NR antlerless opportunities.

NR antlered tags are a premium product that command a premium price.

 

[idahohuntr]

Mostly because people like you are pushing for wildlife to be treated as a commodity sold to the highest bidder. It's just that some are actually successful at implementing crap legislations while others ramble on an online forum.

Whether it's selling wildlife for likes and shares, or for actual dollars, it's all the same and all for the wrong reasons. None of which is making it better for the average hunter.

It has nothing to do with treeshark or people like him...Rs have decided NRs are to be treated as a cash cow in exchange for a small sliver of the pie. Given Rs in all western states support this path, why are you arguing they should leave money on the table? Do Rs have some obligation to NRs that they should be subsidizing their hunting? I also am a 100% DIY public land hunter.

 

[Matthew57]

I’m not sure what you are talking about.

There are ample low-cost resident, youth and NR antlerless opportunities.

NR antlered tags are a premium product that command a premium price.

In my state, one party could pretty easily get zero votes from hunters and still carry the day. Under your logic, why have low cost resident prices? Why have resident opportunity at all? Wouldn't unfettered capitalism result in a better outcome for the resource?

 

[Treeshark]

Wouldn't unfettered capitalism result in a better outcome for the resource?

Perhaps, but that will forever remain hypothetical in my opinion.

As wildlife is a public resource held in trust for the residents of each state, it’s up to them to decide. Nearly all of them have decided to significantly favor residents for obvious reasons.

 

[Matthew57]

Perhaps, but that will forever remain hypothetical in my opinion.

As wildlife is a public resource held in trust for the residents of each state, it’s up to them to decide. Nearly all of them have decided to significantly favor residents for obvious reasons.

Just trying to test where your logic leads. It sounds like if it weren't for pesky voters, we might as well scrap the NAM.

 

[Treeshark]

we might as well scrap the NAM.

Many states have (in favor of the BCM).

 

[idahohuntr]

In my state, one party could pretty easily get zero votes from hunters and still carry the day. Under your logic, why have low cost resident prices? Why have resident opportunity at all? Wouldn't unfettered capitalism result in a better outcome for the resource?

I draw a HUGE distinction between Rs and NRs. Lots of reasons to protect/provide low cost and equitable access for Rs. But as treeshark notes...cows out of the barn for NRs. Hard for me to defend not maximizing revenue from NR.

 

[Matthew57]

Lots of reasons to protect/provide low cost and equitable access for Rs.

That's what I was asking Treeshark, what are those reasons? Not just in your state, but every state. If you think in terms of the new BCM model we apparently have.

 

[Treeshark]

That's what I was asking Treeshark, what are those reasons?

State elections. I explained that already.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Considering $300 in 1985 is about $950 in 2026.... i guess im not seeing where anythings unhinged.

 

[idahohuntr]

That's what I was asking Treeshark, what are those reasons? Not just in your state, but every state. If you think in terms of the new BCM model we apparently have.

In addition to elections/voters, I'd add the State has a trustee relationship with Rs that clearly doesnt exist for NRs. Maximize NR revenue to look out for your beneficiary (Rs).