D
Deleted member 40728
Guest
Being that I’m a NR of Wyoming I wouldn’t know who to talk to. I have enough troubles keeping up with and talking to the looney toons in Pennsylvania
Wyoming > Hicks at it again
- Thread starter 88man
- Start date
Maybe this is common knowledge, but the contents of this bill came directly out of a Mtn Pursuit presentation, available here:
"Resident hunters and outfitters share a common goal … Decrease the number of DIY Nonresident Hunters in Wyoming"
There you have it; it's officially us hunters vs them hunters. Fortunately WYOGA doesn't actually see it that way, yet(?)
"Resident hunters and outfitters share a common goal … Decrease the number of DIY Nonresident Hunters in Wyoming"
There you have it; it's officially us hunters vs them hunters. Fortunately WYOGA doesn't actually see it that way, yet(?)
i hunt a lot around saratoga, even have had some private land access near town for white tails. my family has a place in town and we have some good neighbor friends up there. it's astonishing - even for people that i'm friendly with up there and have known for a couple years, and some for most my life - how explicit they will be to my face about their distaste for the non resident hunters. a landowner who is among the nicest people i've ever met even let that slip once as i was talking to him, rifle on my shoulder, about to walk through his fence to hunt a white tail...
again, i get the sentiment. but still. that lumber mill is a big deal, but so is the tourism and rec that town has going for it.
i almost fear hicks is representing his constituents around there decently well, if nothing else he's representing the loudest ones well
again, i get the sentiment. but still. that lumber mill is a big deal, but so is the tourism and rec that town has going for it.
i almost fear hicks is representing his constituents around there decently well, if nothing else he's representing the loudest ones well
BuzzH
Well-known member
Seriously? I know that quote is in mtn pursuits presentation, but like most any other source, when they make absolute comments like that...are you really dumb enough to believe it?
Its also safe to say that I don't know a single resident hunter that would like to decrease the number of DIY Nonresident hunters. I would like to see every single NR hunter be a DIY guy. I have no sympathy for and don't owe outfitters a thing.
I also don't believe for a second that WOGA wouldn't want to force every hunter, R or NR, to be required to hire a guide. If they thought they could get away with it, they would do that in a second.
What Shaul seems to miss, and that's a problem when you don't listen and you're too busy with your agenda, is that Resident hunters are not opposed to DIY guys, they're just wanting a bigger piece of the available tags. In other words, what the Resident hunters want is 90% of the available tags, which is consistent with what I experience as a NR hunter in most all the surrounding states.
Jeff and I had a long conversation with Shaul several months back, and we flat told him that there would be ZERO support from Residents for an outfitter set aside, and also that the bill would have to be revenue neutral. We also made it 100% clear, that if Residents demand a 90-10 split for the additional tags, then the revenue gap needs to be made up for on license fee increases to RESIDENT hunters. In other words, having a higher percentage of tags should have to be paid for by Residents.
Of course, true to form as I would expect from someone new to the process, he didn't listen. And, the price he and Hicks paid was a total flop of a bill.
What wears me out is the NR's that continually whine cry and complain, when they've been afforded some great opportunities, crying that Residents shouldn't want to adjust tag splits that favor Residents more.
In particular when a vast majority of deer tags are region wide and the 90-10 split would be of no consequence to a single one of those tags. When there is a cap of 7250 full price elk tags, and the remaining 6,000ish NR elk tags they receive is either leftover and/or cow calf tags. Pronghorn would just see a shift in WHERE nr's drew, wayyyyy more than the total number of pronghorn tags they would draw. Meaning, the NR hunters that are savvy, would find more opportunity in mid-tier units being available from the Residents that were drawing a higher percentage of tags in higher demand units. It would essentially be a shift, not a reduction in NR's hunting pronghorn in Wyoming.
Its also my opinion, that sheep, moose, goat, grizzly, and bison tags should be NO more than 10% going to NR hunters since we have massive numbers of Residents that want that opportunity.
Its a lot of NR crying over hardly any lost opportunity to hunt Wyoming.
Deal. I'm going to burn my max deer points this year and give you a call after the draw, ok?
appaloosa
Well-known member
Did you seriously just refer to Baggs, WY as a "far-left" constituency? Holy ...! that made me laugh!
Yeah that's my point, when someone claims to speak for entire classes of Residents and Outfitters with divisive statements like that, they should be called out for it. No, I don't think that legitimately represents the viewpoint of most residents.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Deal! But when it comes to me and deer, darts might be a more strategic choice for you.Deal. I'm going to burn my max deer points this year and give you a call after the draw, ok?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Wow, you really need to grasp reality...you're so far out in the weeds its laughable.
Maybe there’s a guy named Baggs who lives in Albany county and he is the ultra-left offset to Carbon county’s Baggs’ ultra-right constituency.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Not disagreeing that WY can and should do as it chooses, and if 90-10 is the regional norm hard to b*tch too much if WY chooses to go that way as well. But I must be missing something regarding your one point I quoted above. How can a drop from 20% of available tags to 10% (a 50% cut) not on its face be a large reduction in NR’s hunting pronghorn? I get the shift comment, but wouldn’t it be BOTH a large cut and a resulting shift? Not saying that WY should care about the cut or who should cover the cost of reduced tags, just simply trying to see how this change would not dramatically effect actual draw odds.
WapitiBob
Well-known member
It depends on the wording of the 90/10 split, which would/or could change the entire process.
Nr currently get 20% but the process creates a lot more licenses so simply going from 20 to 10 isn’t going to do much.
Buzz can expand but there’s a lot of bs being mentioned as fact regarding what this Bill would have done. The comment that there aren’t enough residents to manage herds was a real gem.
Nr currently get 20% but the process creates a lot more licenses so simply going from 20 to 10 isn’t going to do much.
Buzz can expand but there’s a lot of bs being mentioned as fact regarding what this Bill would have done. The comment that there aren’t enough residents to manage herds was a real gem.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Simple math. The number of Residents who apply for pronghorn and draw tags is not going to see an increase of total applications, just where they apply/draw. The same number of tags will still be on the table.
Already a large portion of the NR tags drawn in the initial draw are from tags that Residents don't draw. The tags that R's don't draw, drop to the initial NR draw.
So, if more Residents draw their first choice tags via the increase of 10% more available tags in certain areas, they aren't drawing their second choice tags, or third choice tags. Those tags they don't draw as 2nd or 3rd choices all drop the initial NR draw.
Thus, just a shift in where R's are drawing, and tag availability where R's aren't drawing 2nd and 3rd choice tags.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Deleted - crossed with Buzz’s reply
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Ahhh - that was the missing part - I didn’t realize that NRs benefited so heavily from unused R allocations.
I agree with you buzz, and while I’m sure I’ll get blasted over it, I’m sick of residents whining about the left over draw. For Christ sake if you want to hunt an area put it as your 3rd frickin choice and you WILL draw it before the NR has a chance in the initial draw let alone the leftover.
BuzzH
Well-known member
How else would NR's have been able to get over 50% of the total available pronghorn tags if that wasn't the case and the leftover list shrinking more and more each year?
Not picking on you, at all, but knowing how the draw works, or doesn't work, can really make a difference one way or the other if R's or NR's are hunting pronghorn each year or riding the pine come September.
Point Creep
Well-known member
Buzz I would still whine about NR losing half the permits, as they would all be good permits and I'd venture to bet the likelihood of drawing a unit that now takes 3-8 years would take at least double that time. I can whine.. and will because that blows. Most states do that, and worse, but it doesn't make it right. When that happens, I'll be moving there.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Couldn't agree more with you...
But, there's more reason for R's to be whining than just that. Many want the opportunity at second buck tags from the tags not drawn by residents in the initial draw. They want a shot in the second draw from all the leftovers from the initial resident draw before sending any tags to the NR side.
Cake and eat it too...as it were.
BrentD
Well-known member
So what you are saying is that NRs should not complain at all that they will be largely moved to the absolute dregs of Wyoming antelope units (probably little public land, poor herds, limited access), but that's not worthy of complaining about? Oh, and their tag prices are likely to jump, what did I hear? 47%?
That would certainly be nothing to complain about.
It's pretty clear to me that if you give to one group, you have to take from another (unless they beam down more antelope from some alien spaceship). And that group that they would take from are a bunch of schmucks for being unhappy about it? Lots of interesting math going on here.
Similar threads
