Are you aware that Wyoming has a task force that currently is meeting and figuring out strategies for stripping nonres of limited big game tags? Are you aware that Wyo outfitters could potentially strip DIY nonres hunters of tags similar to what New Mexico did several years ago?
Are you aware that with 90/10 that 1/2 of the current high demand nonres tags would be stripped from nonres? Cutting nonres limited tags in 1/2 carries a major impact to nonres while it only provides a handful more tags/unit to Wyoming residents. If you think point creep is bad now wait until it takes twice as long to draw high demand tags! The economic impacts to Wyo small town communities and the WG&F are also a reality!
If you are a DIY hunter that enjoys hunting without hiring an outfitter/guide I would also suggest providing comments to the task force. High demand tags could be taken directly away from the nonres hunter pool similar to what was done in New Mexico.
Now's your chance to speak up and voice your opinion! If you are a concerned nonres please send your comments to the task force. The more nonres that flood the task force with comments the more attention we can make! There is no one on the task force other than outfitters that are voicing DIY nonres hunters recommendations so make your voice made! Make sure to provide constructive comments at the following website.
Here's a link to the task forces website: https://sites.google.com/wyo.gov/wyomingwildlifetaskforce/home/public-input
At first, I tried looking at this from the state's standpoint (why wouldn't they fight against this). And I just realized, they don't care, why would they. They're going to sell the same amount of tags, regardless if it's to a DYI hunter, or a hunter going w/ an outfitter.
As far as WY making a move like NM outfitter welfare, I'd have to hear more details on that. Never heard any news on that before now.
The Quick, Fiery Death of Wyoming Senate Bill SF0103 Guy Eastman, Editor-In-Chief March 31, 2021 Regulations 11 Comments 3,602 Views
Rest easy- Your hunting licenses will not be increasing by 85%, for now.
Keeping with tradition, the odd years in Wyoming bring odd and sometimes tired old retreads of legislative bills gone by the wayside from the past legislative session. Senate bill SF0103 is one such case. This bill has been refined from the last time it was introduced but still lacked any real serious support at the state legislative level. The bill failed miserably to emerge from the senate TRW (Travel, Recreation and Wildlife) committee by a vote of 1-4, meaning this proposal was far from favorable once the Committee looked further into the repercussions of such a bill on the Game and Fish Commissions fiscal responsibilities to the state’s sportsman and the department as a whole.
On a bit of a side note, Wyoming is a very traditional and conservative state by nature. Bills like these have a very, very tough road to reality in Wyoming. When it comes to wildlife related legislation, the state has a very guarded approach to wildlife related bills that do not have the full support of the Governor’s Game and Fish Commission. Wyoming sees wildlife management through ballot measures and stiff-arm legislation as a true threat to their system. I do not see our Governor ever signing a piece of wildlife related legislation without the full consent and recommendation of the Game and Fish Commission, period. The Governor appoints the commission at his discretion for a reason. There are lessons to be learned from the Colorado wolf reintroduction debacle.
The details of this bill are somewhat straightforward which is surprising for politics these days, but this is Wyoming after-all. In a nutshell, this bill aimed to cut the nonresident tag allocation for big game licenses to less than 10% from the historic norms of around 20%, depending on the species (moose-16%, sheep-25%, deer, elk and antelope-20%). The original bill introduced a few years ago was very simple and straightforward to that change. But the bill quickly ran into a brick wall regarding funding concerns given the fact that nonresident hunters contribute a massive haul of more than 77% of the total licensing revenue generated by the state of Wyoming. In addition, nonresident applicants in Wyoming contribute more than $12,000,000 worth of preference point fees each and every year to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s budget, while resident applicants only pony up an anemic $100,000. Plain and simple, slashing nonresident hunting licenses by half did not sit well with Wyoming legislators, Game and Fish Commissioners, Outfitters or our Governor. The original bill died quickly.
With the bloom of another legislative year brings another opportunity at a run for this bill as a more refined version including a funding realignment component that would, according to the bill, actually increase revenues to the state Game and Fish Department. This new retreaded bill, Senate Bill SF0103 again sought to cut the nonresident tag allocations by more than half, but also sought to nearly double the cost of what tags were left to nonresident hunters and applicants. In addition, the bill seeks to increase application fees slightly for both resident and nonresident hunters ($5 to $7 for resident, and $15 to $17 for nonresident) alike. The bill would also eliminate nonresident applicants from any hunt that garners less than 10 tags in the quota altogether and would create a $500,000 wildlife crop damage fund with the increased license fees, obviously a landowner crumb thrown in to increase potential legislator support.
The net result would be an $8 million increase in net revenue funding to the Game and Fish Department for the 2023 fiscal year. I assume that figure is correct given it was computed and verified by the folks cooking up the bill, but I did not take the time to back calculate the number as fact.
Some of the obvious problems with this bill include the fact that this bill would literally gut and neuter the nonresident preference point system as it stands. There would no longer be enough nonresident tags allocated into the system to operate the current dual application system placing all nonresidents into one single draw pool, essentially eliminating the “Regular” draw pool and placing everyone into the “Special” draw pool with massively increased fees. I also think this would probably collapse the Wyoming preference point system with demand. The state of Wyoming is seeing massive influxes of applicants into the system currently. For instance, five years ago Wyoming had a total of 67,000 total applicants with elk preference points inside the system, this year there will be nearly 125,000 nonresident applicants vying for an elk tag in the Cowboy State. This represents a massive increase of 87% or nearly 58,000 applicants! The system is not sustainable as it currently sits, without cutting the available tags in half.
The negative economic impacts to the state tourism industry would also be less than ideal as nonresident hunters contribute tens of millions of dollars to our economy each and every year in areas that otherwise see very little tourism dollars during the very busy summer months. The guiding and outfitting industries in Wyoming are a vital sector of our seasonal economy, like it or not. The hunting season also extends the tourism season by nearly two months in Wyoming towns like Jackson, Cody and Sheridan.
And of course, there is always the risk of making hunting more and more of a “rich man’s” endeavor with massive price escalations such as those proposed in this bill. The cost of a nonresident elk tag would increase by 59%, 76% for deer and a whopping 85% for antelope.
As for the resident perspective on all of this. I certainly do not speak for myself here. Most residents I talk to, do seem a bit intrigued by a potential increase in their share of Wyoming’s hunting bounty, but all in all really don’t think it is a fight worth having at this point. If it isn’t broke don’t fix it kind of deal. As a resident myself, I can understand that line of thinking. Would it be nice to get a few more tags for ourselves? Yeah probably, but is it worth the damage to our department and our economy? Probably not. The last thing we want as residents is our Game and Fish Department depending more on resident dollars to make their budgets work. Is the $62 resident elk tag nice to have? Yes, however that price comes as a sacrifice by the nonresident hunter. The more we depend on nonresident dollars for wildlife funding the more the state must consider nonresident concerns with regard to our wildlife management decisions. A potential down the road risk if you ask me.
And let’s face it, putting 741 bull elk tags back into the resident system of over 10,000 total elk tags really won’t change your draw odds by very much in the end. There’s no magic, hard tags are going to be hard to draw no matter what you do.
Be careful what you wish for. I have talked to numerous out of state hunters that are fed up with the tough draws and increasing prices in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho and rebelling from the system not by dropping their applications, but by moving there to gain residency. This will undoubtedly increase the demand on the resident application systems throughout the West in the future, which could actually play into the need for bills like this in future.
If you look at this bill fairly however, one could make a very strong argument for a future tag allocation realignment for nonresident applicants. Particularly when you compare Wyoming’s very, very generous nonresident allocation to that of other neighboring states. A 25% nonresident tag allocation for bighorn sheep seems extreme when compared to most other states in the West where a 5% allocation is more the norm.
No matter what you think of Senate Bill SF0103, the signs all point to increased nonresident tag prices and reduced nonresident tag allocations throughout the West for the future. There just isn’t enough wildlife resources in the West for the increasing, massive demand we are seeing headed our way. The CoVid-19 pandemic is creating a massive population redistribution throughout the country and conservative Western states are seeing more than their fair share of new residents making this situation accelerate even faster.
Of all Antelope tags available, 52% went to Nonresidents, 32% of all deer tags sold went to NR
18% of elk tags went to NR.
Starting with the Big 5 is a great start. Residents should have a significant advantage with Sheep, Moose, Goats, Bison and Griz.
As for the outfitters and landowners. A lot of WY is opposed outfitter welfare, even talk about dropping the wilderness rules. There is concerns about DIY by there is likely something that will have to give for us to accomplish 90/10. Maybe a percent of all tags goes to a private land only tag? Not sure but something.
Another thing many are not addressing in this equation is the influx that WY is seeing. People are flocking to WY and nearly everyone who is heading this way is doing it for hunting and fishing and outdoors. With our relatively low population even 60,000 new people is a pretty big influx! And a great reason for us to work on Resident needs!!
Good luck, Robb
1. How to make the most money from the NR 2. How to give the NR the fewest tags 3. How to keep the NR applying for as long as possible
The big consideration with 90/10 is that nonres tags will be cut in 1/2 and it will take twice as many years for nonres to draw tags. The handful of additional res tags is only 1 to a handful in any given unit and it really won't increase Wyo res draw odds. Is it really worth it to significantly reduce nonres opportunity and revenue to the WG&F and small town communities?
Said it before and I'll say it again....if you're a member of any national sportsman group/association (RMEF, MU, NRA, DU, SCI, etc) and you don't like the way things are going in these states, get your group/association involved.
It just sucks to have the goalposts dug out and moved over the horizon for those who have been in the game because of the allocations that have been in place for about 15 years.
Do away with us common folk who only spend about $1,500.00 a year on food motel/hotel, gas, goodies, etc., etc., going out west (not including licenses of course).
Hell, the way this government is going the lib-tards are going to turn it into a communist country anyway and hunting will be way down on the list of things to be concerned about!
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.
"""The math has been done and with a modest increase in resident fishing and hunting license costs the difference would be made up""". ""The local economy will see the same dollars spent be it residents or NR""
So what you are saying is the resident fishing and hunting license's are going to increase by what about -- 300 to 600%? Just who did the math and what kind of a calculator was used to figure that out. Can you post those facts and figures, it would make for an interesting read?
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
Yes, residents spend money on hunts in local economies when we travel to hunt too.
Don’t like it, move there, really piss ‘em off! :-)
So with the above in mind for the area we hunt, I'd say the G&F are not too concerned about the conservation of all species but more worried about the money that they can garner from them.
That's the problem with bonus & preference points systems. It's hard to predict what's going to happen 20 years down the road! I believe Nevada has the best system.
The residents of all Western States better prepare for lots of negative impacts on there hunting. Within 10 years I can see all big game hunting on a draw for residents & nonresidents. The time that nonresidents can hunt big game every year out of state is about done!!!!!
One solution to this would be to have a waiting period for "premium limited units" for deer, elk, and antelope that are the toughest tags in Wyo to draw. A baseline of 10 or 20% draw odds could be set and all units that are tougher than that to draw would have waiting periods.
Wyo res would then still have the opportunity to apply for tougher draw "premium units" with waiting periods or they could select regular units that wouldn't have waiting periods in place.
A waiting period for "premium units" would provide residents WAY better draw odds than the few tags/unit with 90/10. I can pretty much guarantee that "Premium high demand units" are going to become tougher and tougher to draw as more nonres move to Wyo! This may be a simple solution without going to a pref/bonus pt system or robbing nonres of 1/2 of their limited tag opportunity.
Plain and simple 90/10 only SLIGHTLY increases a Wyo res chance of drawing deer, elk, and antelope tags, cuts nonres opportunity in 1/2, and is a horrible idea for outfitters and WG&F revenue!
Example100 LE elk tags: Currently 84 go to residents, 16 to non-residents. After 90-10 change: 90 go to residents, 10 to non-residents. 37.5% reduction to non-residents. Yes, it's a hit but not 1/2.
"" The details of this bill are somewhat straightforward which is surprising for politics these days, but this is Wyoming after-all. In a nutshell, this bill aimed to cut the nonresident tag allocation for big game licenses to less than 10% from the historic norms of around 20%, depending on the species (moose-16%, sheep-25%, deer, elk and antelope-20%). The original bill introduced a few years ago was very simple and straightforward to that change. But the bill quickly ran into a brick wall regarding funding concerns given the fact that nonresident hunters contribute a massive haul of more than 77% of the total licensing revenue generated by the state of Wyoming. In addition, nonresident applicants in Wyoming contribute more than $12,000,000 worth of preference point fees each and every year to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s budget, while resident applicants only pony up an anemic $100,000. Plain and simple, slashing nonresident hunting licenses by half did not sit well with Wyoming legislators, Game and Fish Commissioners, Outfitters or our Governor. The original bill died quickly.
With the bloom of another legislative year brings another opportunity at a run for this bill as a more refined version including a funding realignment component that would, according to the bill, actually increase revenues to the state Game and Fish Department. This new retreaded bill, Senate Bill SF0103 again sought to cut the nonresident tag allocations by more than half, but also sought to nearly double the cost of what tags were left to nonresident hunters and applicants. In addition, the bill seeks to increase application fees slightly for both resident and nonresident hunters ($5 to $7 for resident, and $15 to $17 for nonresident) alike. The bill would also eliminate nonresident applicants from any hunt that garners less than 10 tags in the quota altogether and would create a $500,000 wildlife crop damage fund with the increased license fees, obviously a landowner crumb thrown in to increase potential legislator support. ""
Are you pushing waiting periods in Colorado ? Seems your residents are fed up with OTC tags for NR and want better hunting too, what are you doing for NR in Colorado ?
Did they go with 50/50 on all the big 5 and oil?
There are hardly any tags that will switch hands with 90/10 but draw odds will improve somewhat in premium units with waiting periods. I would welcome the same waiting period for premium nonres units but nonres already have pref pts for these species and it takes a bunch of pts to draw premium unit tags.
Shrewski I see you could have drawn a sheep license this year based on draw odds, did you apply ? 21 PP going in was not a great spot to be but a tag could have been had.
Yeah, jims wants waiting periods for everyone but himself and his PP sharing scheme.
A broader question the res's will need to ponder......will res's be willing to pay higher license fees for only a marginal gain in draw odds?
Also, if more res decide to apply for premium units it will make regular units even that much easier to draw. Most antelope units across Wyo have excellent draw odds now without 90/10 or waiting periods.
Obviously tag numbers change each year. Currently there are more and more hunters moving to Wyoming. That means draw odds will likely decrease for premium units. The number of hunters that move to Wyoming will likely overcome the relatively few tags that will be taken from nonres with 90/10. My guess is premium units will slowly but surely become tougher to draw with any system.
There are WAY more resident hunters that will be required to wait before applying for another premium waiting period tag than there are additional 90/10 tags that are taken from nonres. Res have significantly better draw odds with waiting periods.
There may be something I'm missing but it's just one more option that Wyo res may want to consider before imposing 90/10 for deer, elk, and antelope. There may also be ways of tweaking waiting periods, bonus pt systems, etc that are even better?
I’ll make the best of whatever system the “task force” comes up with. I’ve been very fortunate in the tags I’ve drawn and the hunts I’ve made and look at every single one as a blessing and really for the last 20 years as gravy and more than I ever dreamed. I’m not bitter, just was looking forward to knowing my points would put me in a position to PLAN my hunt. I’m pretty good at making the best of whatever situation I’m given so I’ll take a random tag, no problem…
For any of you dip-chits suggesting they owe you something because you have been buying points for 15 years. The hard truth is you really missed the boat and should have drawn many tags in that time frame. They owe you nothing. You made the choice to not hunt.
With all that said I will be living in WY next spring so I guess I am now looking at it thru a resident lens. :) Everyone gets to choose where they want to live and be a resident!
Those that think you are owed something. Nope, you bought a WY pref point then CHOSE TO bank it and wait on a high point area, your decision. Same as if you don't hunt or buy for w years, poof your points are gone
When name calling, it's best if you first look in the mirror, read out loud what you've typed, then, if you are still comfortable, go back and type it.
It's not so much that we "choose" to purchase PP's, it's what the state of WY (and most others) have regulated to us.
Anyway, I hope your day gets better and good luck with that move to WY.
I kinda like Old Bow's proposal. If you move here next spring, you won't be considered a resident for hunting purposes until 2023. Maybe we can get a task force going to increase the one year wait to 3 years, or maybe even 5, for all those newbies that feel they should be entitled to the same privileges as those already here. After all, like you say, they owe you nothing since you're not a resident.
Dang. It would be terrible to hear that you weren't able to hunt at some point. Im sure NR's everywhere would be sad for you, like you are them.
You’d think Jims would be all over this, being he’s from CO….To bad he’s so busy trying to tell Wyoming how to handle their business! Lol
The Big Horn Basin’s three members of the Wyoming Wildlife Task Force didn’t waste time with a lot of introductions on Tuesday, getting straight into listening to area hunters, outfitters, landowners and business owners. Before they closed, the group at the Park County Fairgrounds had waded through a myriad of major issues and headed straight for the weeds.
Task force members Rep. Jamie Flitner, R-Greybull, Park County Commissioner and outfitter Lee Livingston and former outfitter and Park County landowner Duaine Hagen scheduled the listening session to get feedback on possible proposals and develop new ideas. Gov. Mark Gordon assembled the team of 18 individuals with hopes of developing acceptable proposals.
There was trepidation the meeting could turn contentious, as hunting and wildlife issue passions run deep here. The broad subject matter — from license allocation and the weapons hunters can use to invasive species and the overall sustainability of wildlife and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department — has the potential to be overwhelming.
Yet, despite facing the possibility of costlier licenses and fees for residents and the typical divides between groups in attendance, there were few fireworks. The small but well-prepared crowd was eager to dive head-first into the conversation, only ending due to time restrictions. None of the issues are quick fixes and each comes with consequences to the species and harvests.
“I think the reason these issues have been so hard to solve is because they are so intricate and intertwined and complicated that, if you make one little tweak, there are likely to be unintended consequences,” Flitner said.
Resident hunters are frustrated with limited licenses, access, and overall opportunities to hunt. Only one proposal — to change the distribution of “the big five” hunting licenses (moose, sheep, grizzly, goat and bison) and offer 15% more to residents — received close to a consensus during Tuesday’s listening session. But even the seemingly most popular proposal comes with several sticking points.
Changing the distribution to a 90%/10% resident/non-resident split will cost the Game and Fish department about $200,000 in revenue. It also has the potential to put off tourism to the state at a time when increased tourism is seen as a possible fix for decreasing mineral extraction revenue, and it includes a species (the grizzly bear) that’s still listed for protections under the Endangered Species Act. Even if the change is made, it won’t substantially increase Wyomingites’ odds of drawing coveted big five tags, Flitner said. The proposal would also limit hunters to a once-in-a lifetime opportunity, regardless of harvest results.
A move to similarly change the split with elk, deer and antelope licenses to increase allocation to resident hunters could cost the Game and Fish Department millions of dollars. Only non-residents are required to buy preference points for ungulates and, in doing so, they subsidize resident hunting, Flitner said. Game and Fish is mostly funded by hunters and federal taxes from the sale of hunting and fishing equipment. None of the department’s current funding comes from the State of Wyoming’s general funds.
“At what point do we get so high that it is just a rich man sport,” Livingston said of allowing the market to determine the price. “If you run it like a business, do you drive folks away?”
If the price of resident licenses went up about $10, that could increase Game and Fish revenues by about $1 million, Flitner said. But the department brings in millions from the sale of non-resident preference points for the right to hunt in the future.
Hagen cautioned against turning away non-resident hunters.
“We better start looking at revenue in the state,” he said. “We’re going to lose a lot of revenue we take for granted.”
Tourism, including from non-resident hunters, is the second-largest source of revenue in Wyoming. Limiting non-resident hunting also affects family members, like those who have moved out of state but would still like to come home to hunt with family in Wyoming.
Offering fewer non-resident licenses could also drive away out-of-state hunters who are unwilling to wait several years to draw a tag, Livingston pointed out. There’s a fear that the preference points system is unsustainable, with hunters likely having to wait decades before accumulating enough preference points to obtain a license.
Those in attendance offered suggestions to alleviate frustrations by hunters unable to draw a tag, pulling some concepts from neighboring states.
Cody Regional Health Livingston said the task force is willing to listen to all ideas, but Wyoming is unique due to its low population and abundance of game.
“On the surface it seems like well, other states are doing it, we should do it. But I think we need to look at what works for Wyoming,” he said. “Other states have millions of people in them and a smaller wildlife resource than Wyoming does. So that needs to be addressed. If we’re going to move forward with something, I don’t think there’s a one-size fits all [remedy]. But I do understand the frustration with folks not being able to draw tags.”
Task force members and those in attendance both agreed on the most important issue: protecting habitat and wildlife resources.
“I think the number one issue is resource management,” Flitner said. “We want to make sure Wyoming continues to have the best wildlife of any state in the nation.”
Healthy habitat and wildlife management, as well as conservation of non-game species in Wyoming, is largely paid for through the sale of hunting licenses and fees.
“It isn’t about me. It can’t be just about me,” said Powell resident Tim Metzler. “It’s got to be about everybody and all of our opportunities, but we still have to leave something in the field. We always need to be concerned about what we leave in the field when we’re done.”
One proposal receiving positive reaction would make harvest surveys mandatory. Currently the state gives hunters the option of reporting success and failure in the field. Many in attendance supported a possible proposal requiring timely reporting of harvests or forfeiting future hunting rights.
Other issues discussed included: policies and practices that might support and incentivize private landowners as stewards of wildlife habitat; supporting outfitters and their guests to maximize the benefits to Wyoming’s economy and wildlife; the distribution of commissioners licenses; management schemes; and methods to improve and better serve Wyoming residents and wildlife. Also up for discussion is the long-term stability of the Game and Fish, poaching and its punishment, invasive species mitigation, trapping and hiking safety, wildlife traffic mortality, technology and fair chase hunting ethics, the Endangered Species Act and access for all hunters.
As the meeting progressed, the discussion leaped from specified topics to issues that probably won’t result in proposals from the task force. For instance, finding a way to tax non-consumptive users — like installing toll gates for tourists or finding a way to make the purchase of conservation stamps mandatory for hikers and wildlife watchers — made their way into the debate.
“We’re getting off into the weeds on those [topics],” Livingston warned.
But the task force members were there to listen and promised to schedule future listening sessions.
“This is a distance race, not a sprint,” Flitner said. “In the end, not everybody’s going to be happy … There’s gotta be give and take on both ends.”
Task force members pleaded for comments, though hundreds throughout the state have already interacted with the group through online and hand-written comments.
“Please submit those comments,” Flitner told the Powell audience, “because you’d be amazed that, during the session when these issues come up, we don’t hear from people like you.”
For more information, visit sites.google.com/wyo.gov/wyomingwildlifetaskforce.
For instance ... maybe a once-in-a-lifetime outfitted back-country elk trip really IS worth $$$ for someone looking for that memory or trophy that they enjoy right up until they shuffle off to the nursing home.
But then, as a resident, I have out-of-state friends and family who are just interested in the social aspect of enjoying time together, hunting "meat animals".
Looking at every hunt like it's going to be the next magazine cover article bids the price up too high, and effects the experience and expectations of those of us who hunt primarily to hold together the social bonds of family and friendship.
Sure wish I had an answer that would
-- help my state's revenue base -- hold together my friendships and family bonds through hunting with those non-residents I enjoy -- price the trophy experience correctly, so as not to cheapen truly OIL experiences -- value our wilderness appropriately
A random moment of spoken reality. So goes the NR's.....so goes WY's revenue.....and program solvency.
Maybe another approach is for the WY F&G (and any other state F&G Dept) to look at ways to reduce their costs. By doing so, they would decrease their dependency (addiction??) to the revenue. That would give them more wiggle room in their decision-making. They would need to determine their "nice to have" and "need to have" programs and make some decisions. It may take external, independent reviewers to go thru the F&G Dept structure and identify the "nice to have" or "pet" programs or regs that are part of the budget.
Wyoming will figure it out….
The Taskforce will continue to discuss ways to improve the preference points system. What would you like the members to know?
The Taskforce will be discussing how to increase resident hunter opportunities for elk, deer and antelope. What would you like the members to know?
The Taskforce will be discussing landowner matters. What would you like the members to know?
Here's a few key notes you may want to consider: 1) Draw odds for Wyo res will only slightly improve if 1/2 the limited D/E/A tags are taken from nonres with 90/10. If Wyo res truly want to improve their odds for drawing high demand tags there are significantly better draw odds with only 1 to 3 year waiting periods after a hunter draws without all the headaches of taking 1/2 of the available limited tags from nonres.
2) I don't think Wyo wants to turn into New Mexico where a chunk of limited tags are available to landowners plus another set of limited tags were stripped from nonres and are now available only as outfitter tags. I think it's great that there are limited tags available in a draw for everyone and each hunter can decide if they want to hire a guide or hunt on their own.
3) Private Land Only tags are actually a pretty good deal. Here in Colo these tags are available to everyone in the draw that are only good to hunt private land. These tags usually have excellent draw odds so landowners and outfitters have better draw odds for family members and clients. Hunters that draw these tags also have the option to get permission and DIY hunt. It's also possible for the CPW to manage tags/big game on private land that ultimately places less hunting pressure on public land.
Here's the link to submit your comments: https://sites.google.com/wyo.gov/wyomingwildlifetaskforce/home/public-input
"........ I don't mind a price increase as a non-resident who hunts Colorado when in fact you are taking good people out of the woods by phasing them out due to income."
^.....well stated! If you phase out the good people, who's left? Then you ask who wins and loses. Furthermore, one collateral effect, if you have less NR's going to a particular state, who is going to help the res's when anti-hunting attacks start up? Many of those ex-NR's hunters no longer have skin in that state. Just a thought to ponder....
That brings me to the point of thinking about all of those young hunters that live in the Midwest or East that may never have the opportunity to hunt Western US big game because they either can't afford it or they have no chance of drawing high demand tags. The only choice they have is to move to a Western State to experience this. I could really care less if I draw another tag as a nonres but am very concerned for the younger generation as hunting the west seems to becoming a thing of the past for those that enjoy hunting on their own. Fewer nonres tags and higher costs associated with applying is slowly but surely loosing the younger generation hunters.
I don't see you going after other states, why so hard on WY...Could it be that it might possibly curb your point sharing game?!? Things that make you go Hmmm!
Ike, just remember that 77% of the license and pref pt revenue that goes directly to the WG&F come from nonres. Pref pt revenues from nonres continues to rise each year but with 90/10 that will likely drop. Wyo res don't pay pref pt fees for e/d/a so they provide $0.00.
So Ike, if you were a father of 2 sons from Iowa. Would you be willing to fork out $1,200/year for pref pts for you and your son's to apply for sheep, moose, d, e, and a? How about $300/year for the 3 of you to apply for just d/e/a? The price of pref pts may rise so there is the chance this $ will increase in the years to come.
The funny thing is it would be $28/year for a father/son to apply for moose and sheep pts as Wyo res.....only $280 vs $6,000 over a 10 year period for res vs nonres pref pt fees. No wonder the Hunting Heritage across the Western US is changing.
I've broadcasted 90/10 across many websites to inform nonres on what's going on before it is to late. I believe it is wise for nonres to voice their comments to the Task Force because this is the only way to submit their concerns.
Nonres have so much to loose with 90/10.,,,1/2 of the limited tags that currently are available. Nonres have invested up to 25 years to the Wyo sheep and moose draw system and upwards of 15 years to D/E/A pref pt system. Wyo residents have provided $0.00 revenue support for D/E/A over these years. Nonres have a lot invested into these pref pt systems both financially and years applying for tags.
What I really hope is brought to everyone's attention is the loss of nonres opportunity for those that enjoy hunting OYO, DIY in the Western US. That opportunity is slowly but surely disappearing across the West as tags become tighter and more expensive just to apply. Our youth in the future are the real losers in this battle. Youth that are fortunate to grow up in great states like Wyo will always have that opportunity but youth across the East and Midwest may never have the opportunity to hunt species like elk that aren't available in their own states.
I thought to myself, I can sit back and allow the Task Force and Wyo res to pass 90/10 or I can bring this to nonres hunter's attention. I don't see this as telling Wyo how they should manage tags and hunters. I see this as an opportunity to offer suggestions that might benefit both Wyo res and nonres. Many of these ideas may not have even been considered if I didn't submit comments.
The bottom line is Wyo res want the better opportunity (better draw odds) to draw high demand limited tags. I've tried to show that 90/10 does very little to do this and there are other options that will do this way more effectively without significant impacts to nonres and revenue.
Any nr with 10 or fewer points for Sheep/Moose shouldn't be buying points, and never should have started, regardless of the res/nr splits. Their only tag will come from the random side. I'll quit hunting before I stop buying E/D/A points for my family, they're only $124.