Contributors to this thread:
Has anyone sued WY?
With Wyoming going to 90/10 allocations, have they not defrauded those of us who have invested in points for the past 20yrs? Tag allocations due to population fluctuations changes the number of tags available, but the allocation basis remained the same. Yes the state owns the wildlife and has sovereign rights to the management thereof. However, encouraging the nonresident hunter to invest in points based on a system of their design, and then changing that design whereby statistically (for sheep, and moose) it is no longer possible for a nonresident to draw in their lifetime. Change the system…fine,but in my mind non-residents have the right to a full refund (w/interest based on inflation). Nonresident hunters fund agencies with tag fees 4-10x resident fees, but we are the most under represented group.
Good luck with that lawsuit.
Even worse, IMO is being locked out of federal lands designated as Wyoming wilderness areas. I may be missing the news of all the non residents getting lost and never seen again. In the “Vast Wilderness”. If getting lost or injured is the justification. Require rescue insurance or add a state rescue fee.
That lawsuit will be filed, count on it. There's just too much money at stake, tens of millions.
As stated above, Wyoming did engage in an implied contract with NR hunters. If you give us enough money, you will eventually be allowed to hunt. If you apply for points for each of the big 5 for 20 years, you have invested $15,000 in this contract. That times 10,000 plus hunters and the amount is staggering. I realize the number isn't actually that high but it is enourmous. If you don't think a thousand lawyers wont be lining up for 30% or more of that pool of money you are fooling yourself.
The state of Wyoming reached too far on this one. They didn't think this through and the ramifications will be huge.
I understand the frustration and if I were in a nonresident’s shoes, I’d be pissed if the rules were changed in the middle of the ballgame. That said, I think a lawsuit would be extremely difficult to win at best. There was never a guarantee that preference points would result in a license. They are a way to improve your odds of eventually drawing a license in a hard-to-draw hunt area. That has been true and will continue to be, although to a lesser degree. Even though it sucks, there has never been a guarantee that the system wouldn’t change.
Right now this involves two species with points, since Mt Goat and Bison don't have points. But I agree with JSW, somebody will probably give litigation a try. As best I can tell, Wyoming has been collecting upwards of 4 million a year from NR's for points and app fees for sheep & moose. If you add the convenience fees (applied to the full license fee) that adds more to the total out of pocket cost for NR's who apply for licenses. Looking back, I know I've given them over 10k (all species) during the last 20 years and that's without even drawing a license. It's asking a lot for people to just shrug it off and say "oh well". But they're probably gonna re-write their draw rules so that points still have value. A bonus or bonus-squared points system has been mentioned.
I'd donate to their litigation. Right is right and wrong is wrong.
They’ve tried to reverse the WY wilderness law and that’s been shot down. You can definitely try but I suspect it won’t get over turned.
That would be a bigger waste of money than the preference points you’ve been accumulating
Gov't at work f******g the people again.
Bou now that's funny. Let me know if a lawyer wins I'll be hiring that guy to get back some money a casino "stole" from me.
Seriously, that’s your answer…Frick’n give me a break, their ball, their game! You could add OR, NM and whoever else to that, why just WY?!?
I think it’s pretty silly to think there are legal ramifications for the state of WY. Everyone still has their points. They have just been devalued significantly. Can we sue the fed for the inflation we are experiencing? The money in my bank account is being devalued daily. I get it, guys are pissed, but I would be shocked if there in any legal cure.
I also agree that excluding NR hunters (but not hikers, or fishermen, or campers) from federal ground “wilderness” is asinine. If that can’t be legally cured I don’t see a snowballs chance in hell the 90/10 can be.
Better start burning them elk/deer/lope points, cause they are next!
What goes around comes around.
I’ve done business in Wyoming for the last ten years. It’s a “unique” business culture to say the least. The decision doesn’t surprise me in the least. Par for the course.
"There was never a guarantee that preference points would result in a license. "
I really hope a lawsuit happens. I think it has a large chance of being thrown out, but if it stuck, it’d give F&G depts across the nation pause before bait and switch moves.
So wolves hunting can be outlawed via lawsuits, bear baiting, etc eliminated via special ballot….tell me what recourse does the nonresident dyi hunter have? According to EBJ nonresidents fund 60% of WYGF budget. Wy is not a particularly wealthy or populated state ( which is why I love it). Are we to fold our hands and wait for them to take tags out of the draw and hand them to landowners to sell (refer to elk and deer tags) like NM?
Btw right there with you on the wilderness thing. We can walk in the woods with a side arm year round, but we can’t hunt our ( not their) land. Also glad to see the noise regarding corner jumping, big surprise where I stand on that issue.
It wouldn't be difficult for a group of lawyers to draft documents and "advertise" anyone interested in a class action. Wouldn't surprise me if some lawyers have invested money for points and are losing out as well. All it would take is a good 'ol boy (or girl) judge to throw the lawsuit out on some lame technicality.
Correct, points don't guarantee the tag. That's not the point. The point is the process required to have a better shot at the tag because of how the system was advertised with common knowledge of how it works and WY reneged. On a side note, if I had the option to sell my points back to UT, I would in a heartbeat...
I have 20 + points for sheep and moose in many of the western states. Not sure what I am going to do. I doubt that a lawsuit would be fruitful but it would not surprise me that some enterprising lawyer might try. I live in Pennsylvania. I am a life member of wild sheep, RMEF, etc. I suspect that if the western states continue along these lines, the conservation organizations are going to have a very hard time recruiting new members from the eastern states when they essentially have removed any realistic chances of those hunters of drawing a tag. You may say so what. I know for a fact that for a few years the Pittsburgh chapter of RMEF was the number one revenue generating chapter. Not sure where they are now, but I bet that they are close. We do have elk in pa and we are killing bulls bigger than Wyoming. Ironically non-residents have the same chance of drawing as I do. I guess we are stupid in pa. I suspect that decisions like Wyoming are going to cause more of those conservation dollars to stay on the East coast. Sad. For those residents who are happy about this, I am reminded of what my mother used to tell me - be careful what you wish for…. My two cents.
I have no doubt it would be a huge undertaking. I've wasted money on worse things though surely.
@madtrapper I agree wholeheartedly on the east coast dollars and generosity with them. I am in the same boat as you with Ohio being extremely generous to the nrs. We dont have elk, but the deer here are otc, and no draws. The difference here is us residents still pay for the majority of the revenue generated in our state, and yours. The same cant be said for WY.
Bou for the win! And honorable mention to PushCoArcher.
Sign me up. There have been many con games over the years by different states. This one takes the cake though. And if you really followed the process over the years you can see it was calculated.
Comparing western big game hunting opportunities to midwestern or eastern WT’s is apples to oranges.
Like I said before, I understand the frustration, but what resolution does anyone expect a lawsuit to accomplish? No one is losing the PP’s they’ve acquired. Whether you feel it’s fair or unfair, the 90/10 split brings Wyoming more in line with other western states. Obviously time will tell, but I just can’t see anything “illegal” about the change.
Before any of you get a lawyer on retainer, keep in mind that one of the ideas being considered is to change moose and sheep from preference point to bonus point system. If that would happen, whatever points anyone has would retain value and everyone that applies would have at least a mathematical chance at drawing. Certainly would make it more difficult to claim you were defrauded by WY and that you'll never have a chance of drawing.
Idyl that may be true but there was never a guarantee that you would never draw a license either and now there is. That being said Bou pretty much nailed it.
Class Action Lawsuits are not one plaintiff and one attorney, so no, it wouldn't necessarily be a bigger waste of money. A 5 million dollar payout and 1 million in legal fees is a score of a win. You may not get all the money back, but that's not the intent of a CA. The CA is to stick it to the defendant...
What I know, when it comes to Wyoming with their points system I would get a sheep and a moose tag. After 20 years I got a moose tag. My sheep tag has gone from 100% to pretty much 0 chance. It doesn't matter if they become bonus points. Now i have to decide whether to continue buying and become a resident down the line. As far as PA offering unlimited elk tags to nonresidents, they got it right. Reality is only about 5% of the elk tags go to nonresidents. This is what VA should of done.
That would be a bigger waste of money than the preference points you’ve been accumulating
Maybe I missed it somewhere, but has there been any consideration by WY on how they'll make up for the lost revenue when low point holders and midtier completely drop out of the game? It seems to me that the G&F is going lose $ with this change but maybe I'm wrong.
Now the guy with all those points will never get drawn.. Throw the dice & go anyway, right. Poaching looks like it may be cheaper, even if caught.. Our Gov't makes criminals out of honest folks.
G-N-G, yes, you can be sure they've considered that. As mentioned a few times above, it has been discussed to change preference points to bonus points or bonus squared. Very few NR would drop out then. In fact, that change might even increase applicants & points buyers. That way the flow of money from points sales wouldn't miss a beat. This would've probably never sailed through their assembly like it did, if this fact was not known well in advance.
There are plenty of new point purchasers that have no idea how the process really works. There will come a moment of WTF clarity after 3 or 4 years when they learn to read the draw odds charts.
Sticksender nailed it. They know exactly what they are doing and have for years.
I am always amazed at the depth of legal expertise on this site….
In that case, I want to sue the Lottery…I should have won by now!!!
Grey Ghost's Link
The biggest problem (legally) the state of Wyoming may face is that given the current rules, there will likely be zero random tags for sheep and moose. This is based on the formula they use to allocate tags to non-residents. If there are actually zero random tags, then in fact they have not simply devalued the points, they made them WORTHLESS for all but the near maximum point holders. It is one thing to say the odds have decreased, there are fewer tags, etc., BUT if there are ZERO random tags, then the injury to most hunters is more defined, and less likely to survive a legal challenge. I don't think a legal challenge is necessarily a great idea, but many are being less than honest saying the odds have decreased. For most hunters, the odds will now be ZERO. Bill
If anyone wants to sue Wyoming for changing the rules, again, they may want to research the Wyoming Outfitters Association vs. Corbett case in 2000. The WOA, along with 5 nonresident hunters, sued the Wyoming Game and Fish for restricting nonresident licenses and for charging a $10 application fee. The case was dismissed for lack of standing, and all parties had to pay their own legal fees. I'm no legal expert, but I think any attorney, worth his salt, would advise against a similar lawsuit.
Nobody is suing WY game and fish over this. HB0043 is state legislation, game and fish has nothing to do with res/nr quotas. Guy is clueless when it comes to WY, quit reading his garbage.
Revenue loss will be 200,000, the game dept won't need to do anything.
I'll trust Bob's math, as usual. Different story if 90/10 comes to elk and deer. Bet that would cost in the millions.
I bailed long ago, but agree with llamapacker on this one. In the last 27 years, I've had many goalposts excavated and moved back 10-20 yards. However, never had any torn out and hauled to the dump permanently. This could be different.
"In that case, I want to sue the Lottery…I should have won by now!!!"
Be a legit comparison if the only way to get a point was to apply and play in a random draw the way you do the lottery. Instead, people have paid now for investment later...
HDE, what would be the foundation of your lawsuit?
Ok, so maybe this has been posted on here and I missed it. But 10% tags to NR. That 10% is split 75% to max points draw and 25% to random draw. So to have a chance at a random tag there would have to be at least 40 total tags for a given unit correct? Does WY even give 40 tags in any unit for sheep or moose? My math might be incorrect so if it is I apologize. Does this seem like an accurate assessment of what is going to happen?
GG, I'm not filing lawsuit. For some, the process was to accumulate points. That's the only "real way" to draw. Now, that benefit is forfeit. And, not by accident.
If the entire moose or bighorn population were wiped out by a band of renegade skinwalkers that jumped off reservation and you could never apply again, that's one thing. But to yank that ability because the state chose to exercise "legal" discrimination against a nonresident that before allowed them to accumulate points with the expectation to draw that tag and then suddenly disqualify them because of that change isn't the same thing.
If a punk jackwagon holding company can sue hunters for damaging airspace, a large number of hunters can sue WY for turning their point investment into nothing when the prior reality allowed them the chance to exercise that benefit.
Choice is theirs. I said earlier, a good 'ol boy (or girl) judge would likely throw it out on some lame technicality. But then again, if a liberal judge can stop a state sponsored grizzly hunt...
There is a very good chance the task force will discuss and move forward, a change to the Moose/Sheep drawing, and go to a random bonus draw structure with squared points.
There is close to zero chance the task force will ask for 90/10 for Elk/Deer/Antelope. It's always possible but the people I know, who know, have said there is zero chance this will come out of the task force. At that point it would need to be a legislative bill sponsored by a legislator and get thru the TRW Committee. WYOGO isn't going to support 90/10 E/D/A.
Llamapacker points were already worthless except for the top tier guys. Also a guy with 20 point and a guy with 2 have the same chance in the random draw so that doesn't devalue points. It does take away that faint glimmer of hope that was the only chance of 90% of point holders or applicants to get a tag. It's hard to feel sorry for top tier guys as many could've had a tag years ago if they'd have not chased a top end unit or could still get a cow tag. Hard to feel sorry for mid or low tier guy's as they should've done their math and saw it was never gonna happen. Especially if you're a younger guy that never had a chance to be in the top point tier. I would bet Wyoming will convert its points to bonus for the big three soon similar to the Colorado system. That will keep the most fish on the hook and even hook some new fish all trying for a few miracle tags. God only knows how long they'll be able to keep that system going. Maybe by then I'll be a old bitter man threatening to sue a state for "duping" me. The best bet for all (except the handful of top point holders) would be move all NR tags to a straight random. The money of app fees alone would be pretty good and everyone has a equal shot. Like NM without the outfitter pool abomination.
WapitiBob good to hear about the elk, deer, and antelope sounds like it won't be this year. But if I was placing bet I'd bet They'll be 90/10 in less then a decade.
Boy Bob, I don’t know. I hear what they SAY now, but there was a lot of talk in those meetings that there would be no $$$$$$$ impact taking away non resident LE elk tags because the number of NR tags is set, they would just go to more general. The legislators and WYGF care about the $$$$$$$. The residents want the best tags. The outfitters and ranchers didn’t give up those moose and sheep tags for nothing…it’s a win for everyone in Wyoming.
edited to correct the type 6/7
Reducing nr LE tags will shift more to special gen because they need to issue 7,250 full price type 1/2/4/5 tags. 90/10 for Elk will increase revenue for that species because of that shift to special as you noted.
The game dept is currently being sued by Robb Shaul to force them to include type 6/7 reduced price antlerless tags in that 7,250 number (currently they don't). I haven't seen any fiscal impact should he succeed but it would throw a monkey wrench into the gears for sure.
The task force is scheduled to discuss the 7,250 at their meeting later this month.
So this might be a stupid question but what if I applied this year and checked the box to purchase a point if not drawn?Can you change that and whats the thinking on doing that
You can modify or withdraw a S-M-G-B application until April 15th. The reduced quota doesn't apply to licenses issued prior to July 1, 2022.
Indirectly related to the Wyoming issue was Arizona changing their rules a few years back with regard to how NR's applications are processed. Part of the reason why AZ changed their rules from up to 10% to up to 5% in the twenty percent pass and the remaining up to 5% in the random draw was because there was a threat from non-resident(s) G&F would be sued. The NR's made the argument that G&F was promoting the idea if non-residents applied they had a "chance" to draw. It was brought to their attention that statistically that just wasn't the case. All the NR tags were going to the guys with the most points in the twenty percent pass. Unless you had max or near max points for that hunt number, NR's had zero chance of drawing a tag. The AZ system was basically a preference point system and not a bonus point system for NR's. In an effort to not be sued or even go to court, G&F changed the rules so at least a few of the tags would be a available to NR's in the random draw portion. If you were a NR with a bunch of points this new rule set you back but if you were a younger guy or someone just getting in the points game, the rule change served you better.
Seems like a go fund me might be in order for the Wyoming case.
I think a class action suit is very appropriate and I want in on it. If they were giving away points for years you didnt draw it would be one thing but when you jack up the price to $150 and then take away the chance of drawing a tag on the points you have bought…thats fraud!
Who are you going to sue? Game and Fish doesn't set quotas.
Bob, isn't there a governor appointed Game and Fish commission that sets the direction for the Game and Fish Department? And aren't quotas a part of that direction? Please educate us.
I absolutely believe that Wyoming defrauded applicants. I also absolutely believe that such a lawsuit will fail.
Unfortunately I agree with Gil.
GG, yes the game commission is governor appointed. They do approve quotas every year as far as the number of tags made available for each area and species, based on winter kill, biologists reports/etc. OTOH, when it comes to resident/nonresident splits, point systems, etc, those are a result of bills being approved by the state legislature and signed into law by the governor.
Thanks, Rob. Now I understand Bob's point. I'm assuming the 11th Amendment would make this lawsuit virtually impossible, perhaps even unconstitutional.
God i hope buzzh doesnt show up in this forum too.
Buzz is a dick but at least he's not a crybaby and knows what he's talking about.
I've talked to him a bunch, good guy actually but he has a short fuse when it comes to guys on the internet talking out their butts.
WB, In person and online are two different folks it seems. He does know his "stuff".
On the phone, both text and voice. He's done hunting before I get there so we haven't met in person yet.
I am always amazed at the depth of legal expertise on this site….
^^^ kind of like archery experience when people are confused enough to think KE means anything?
If anyone has one of the two (that I am aware of) surveys they sent NR that would help. It was very obvious they wanted to get as much money from NR as possible, keep them applying the longest and give out the fewest tags. I feel 1 was about 8-9 years ago and the other 6.
I do not know nearly enough legal precedence to know if a complaint will work. Even if it doe snot the media attention could have an affect. I have thought about this a lot over the past year and I see no downside for WY. NR can't win IMO. When WY increased sheep points to $100 (from $7) 1/2 NR dropped out. This meant WY was making 7x the money for half the work. Not hard for them to see how to play this game after that - then the surveys came.
From SS post:
"Right now this involves two species with points, since Mt Goat and Bison don't have points. But I agree with JSW, somebody will probably give litigation a try. As best I can tell, Wyoming has been collecting upwards of 4 million a year from NR's for points and app fees for sheep & moose. If you add the convenience fees (applied to the full license fee) that adds more to the total out of pocket cost for NR's who apply for licenses. Looking back, I know I've given them over 10k (all species) during the last 20 years and that's without even drawing a license. It's asking a lot for people to just shrug it off and say "oh well". But they're probably gonna re-write their draw rules so that points still have value. A bonus or bonus-squared points system has been mentioned."
I strongly agree.
Please do not use the "in line with other states" baloney. Do you teach your kids that if all their friends are using drugs so should they? That "logic" is literally to stupid to insult. Should we get lazy and fat because everyone else is doing it?
Here’s WY revenue sheet for 2020. As you can see NR provides a lot of income for preference points.
"In line with other states baloney"
Why is it baloney? Why should Wyoming give a higher percentage of it's big three tags then it's neighbor to the north or south? Other then you want one and feel entitled for what? Because you bought some points? Game and fish should what base their decisions on revenue and not their mandate of holding the wildlife in trust for the RESIDENTS of their state. "That logic is to stupid to insult" at least it's based on logic and not emotion. The kid drug thing is just a bad analogy I would say a more accurate one would be. If you lived in a suburb and all your neighbors property tax was 10% of the property value but yours was 20% would you be pissed?
Thanks for posting the revenue sheet bowboy. There are some interesting bits there for sure. That 77% of the WYG&F licensing income stream is from NR's. And that NR's contribute 99% of the preference point revenue collected. And that point revenue is the largest line item of income, at 12 million per year. But....none of that matters and NR's who've bought into the system for 15-20 years or more should just shut up and smile!
I’m typing this from memory so I won’t guarantee it’s 100% accurate. Years ago US Outfitters sued the state of AZ and won a larger percentage of non-resident tags based on the fact the most game animals live on federal land. They then went after NV which resulted in Harry Reid getting involved and getting federal legislation passed that states have the right to manage their wildlife based on the premise wildlife is a state owned resource. I’ve never read that legislation but it may have something in it that prevents outside lawsuits like what’s being discussed.
Another thought is the fact that casino floors change their floors and pay tables on a regular basis and also exclude certain individuals from playing in their casinos. No one is suing and winning against casinos for this business practice. I spent 28 years in the industry manufacturing casino and lottery machines and because I don’t gamble I only know how casinos manage their floors through colleagues. One of my colleagues had over $30M in coin-in last year and he’s also been banned from playing certain types of machines at one Reno casino. They know his background and it’s significant. He’s not suing or winning, he simply took his money somewhere else.
USO did attempt to sue AZ for more tags back around 2004 or 05 but they did not win. It was ruled that the wildlife belong to the state and the state has the right to regulate them as they see fit. This even included the wildlife on lands owned by the federal government such as our national forests. Believe it or not, but former Nevada Senator, Harry Reid came to AZ's defense. I occasionally see a Piss on USO bumper sticker.
I worked for USO and George T the first cpl years they were in business. AZ was arbitrarily limiting their access to clients so he sued. I thought it was a good business decision and still feel that way. The feds clarified the issue and now a state can discriminate against NR any way they see fit. Had he won, we wouldn't be having a discussion about 90/10 and 20 years worth of points getting devalued.
Sorry but you’re incorrect. US Oufitters sued AZ in the early 2000’s and won, getting the NR cap lifted and AZ issued a much higher number of non-resident tags for one year. They then turned their attention to Nevada and that’s when Reid stepped in. Detail of both states is below.
I don’t agree with states changing the rules but I do agree with states rights to manage the wildlife within their own borders and I was happy as hell when US Outfitters greed driven lawsuit was shut down. Good business decision sure but it would’ve had a negative impact on the residents of most western states and it would’ve also changed the rules based on a small group’s greed which is exactly what most in this thread are arguing against doing when it’s not in their favor. But since it would’ve been in your favor back then I guess it’s all good….
Arizona - Copy and pasted from articles on the subject:
On August 20, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco decided an Arizona case entitled Conservation Force, Inc. v. Manning.
The Ninth Circuit Court held that state authority over big game hunting is limited by the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
This means that discrimination against nonresidents is strictly limited.
In fact, Arizona could not justify its nonresident quota caps to the federal trial court after remand by the Circuit, and Arizona lost its case in a ruling on July 13, 2004.
Since Nevada is in the Ninth Circuit, the decision in Conservation Force, Inc. v. Manning is now the law also in Nevada and other western states in the Ninth Circuit.
Therefore, Nevada's caps on nonresident big game tags may not survive the legal challenge which has now been brought against Nevada by the same plaintiffs who sued Arizona.
The Ninth Circuit Court decision altered decades of wildlife law in the United States. It concluded that sport hunting is an activity that affects commerce, and is therefore subject to the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
The court drew this conclusion for two reasons: (1) because "hunting in Arizona promotes interstate travel of people, like the plaintiffs, who want to take advantage of Arizona's excellent hunting opportunities;" and (2) because "Arizona allows the nonedible portions of bull elk and antlered deer taken from its lands to be sold in interstate and international markets."
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that states must justify limits on nonresidents as the least discriminatory way to protect the valid interest of the State in maintaining hunting opportunity for its residents.
On July 13, 2004, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona held that Arizona's system, which is similar in some respects to Nevada's, did not meet that standard.
Based on the interstate commerce clause in the United States' Constitution, the District Court enjoined Arizona from using non-resident quota caps to allocate big game tags.
Arizona chose to issue an additional 805 big game tags for 2004 deer and elk hunting. Of those 805 extra tags, 700 went to nonresidents and the remaining 105 went to residents.
RENO, Nev. — A federal court lawsuit challenging the way Nevada allocates nonresident hunting tags has been dismissed after Congress passed a law that affirms the rights of states to manage wildlife.
The order by U.S. District Judge Kent J. Dawson was issued after lawyers for three New Mexico outfitters and state attorneys agreed the action was warranted because of the new law, signed by President Bush on May 11, that affirms the right of states to regulate hunting and fishing within their borders.
The measure, sponsored by several Western lawmakers, including Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign, was in response to a 2002 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said states restricting nonresident hunting tags must do so in the "least discriminatory" way.
That ruling based on an Arizona case left many of the 11 states within the court's jurisdiction scrambling to amend regulations on how resident and nonresident hunting and fishing licenses and tags are issued.
Though other states use restrictive criteria for some hunts that favor residents over nonresidents in tag allocations, Nevada is the only state that uses a quota system for all big game species.
"It was hunters fighting with hunters," said Terry Crawforth, director of the Nevada Department of Wildlife. "I was concerned that we were spending sportsman's dollars for refereeing a fight rather than spending hunter dollars to do good things for wildlife.
"I am pleased that we got the legislation and the fight is over," Crawforth said in a statement Monday.
The new federal law acknowledges it is in public interest for any state to be able to regulate fish and wildlife programs within its boundaries, "including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and nonresidents."
It also declares that big game tag regulations and management programs do not fall under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
In their lawsuit, Jean Taulman, Lawrence Montoya, Filiberto Valerio and United States Outfitters Inc., all of Taos, N.M., argued Nevada's draw system that reserves most big game tags for residents discriminates against non-Nevadans and is constitutionally prohibited under the Commerce Clause as an interference with interstate commerce.
Besides lost hunting opportunities, the lawsuit claimed quota restrictions resulted in lost income for the outfitting business.
The order was signed May 26 in Las Vegas, but Dawson allowed the outfitters time to file an amended complaint before the ruling became final.
"...now a state can discriminate against NR any way they see fit."
Only for certain things. There still needs to be the process of justification as it applies to all other federal and state laws.
A decade ago the average Rocky mnt state gave NR 20% (CO was 35%). To everyone arguing 10% is "in line with other states" please explain what parameters have changed that suddenly now half as much is fair?
Don I started hunting out west less then a decade ago so I'll have to take your word for it. For Moose, Sheep, and Goat in Colorado the current allocation is 10% and it is in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Utah as well. So if what you say is accurate then the "parameters" that changed where other states with similar opportunities changed the goalposts first. Even if what you said about past allocations is true do you think there's less people today than a decade ago? The state's we're discussing have grown in population not shrunk. I'd also venture to say a higher percentage of the population of those states hunts. Also unfortunately in most cases there's not more sheep or moose on the mountain than a decade ago sadly there's less which equals less tags.
“Also unfortunately in most cases there's not more sheep or moose on the mountain than a decade ago sadly there's less which equals less tags.”
Wyoming’s moose population has declined from a high of approximately 10,000 in the mid 1990’s to just under 3,500 in 2020. Moose license quotas have followed suit.
IMO growing human population should have nothing to do with % of tags to NR. If you disagree then if a western states population grows slower then the rest of the US should they increase the NR allocation?
The "everybody else is doing it logic" is fundamentally flawed logic. I use the term "logic" very loosely.
I will never think NR getting 10% of the tags and paying 90% of the game & fish budget is fair. I will always support NR getting less tags. I have hunted WY a LOT. I have good friends there and have had some of my most amazing experiences of my life there. hat being said the way they treat NR is not ok with me. There is almost nothing I can do about it and I am Definity still planning to hunt there so they have me by the short curlies.
This year when I really thought about what they are charging me I was not happy. $878 I think it is is point/app fees, nonrefundable. They are also holding over $10k of money for this privilege, which would be $2k more if I applied for bull bison instead of cow bison.
Are there any residents who think $878 for a NR just to apply is fair? If yes are you are fine with other states charging you, your friends and family that much to just apply? Please keep in mind I have not made a single reference to draw odds and the fact that most NR have somewhere slightly above 0 chance of pulling sheep & moose. I am ignoring the odds completely.
A majority of sheep & moose hunts in WY take pace on federal land we all "own".
To be fair I have hunted WY a LOT. I am thrilled for the opportunity it is the cost I question. Off the top of my head I have hunted WY:
9 times for elk, 3 times for lope, bison, 3 deer. I will also draw sheep and moose within the next 5 years.
Stand by for another price increase….
"There is almost nothing I can do about it and I am Definity still planning to hunt there so they have me by the short curlies."
There is one thing you can do, Don...
Not if I want to hunt WY. There is 1 thing I can do but it has no affect. When Sheep points went from $7 too $100 1/2 the NR apps dropped out. Sure they did something. WY still made 7x as much money for 1/2 the work. In that case "doing something" (dropping out) was about as useless as it gets when it comes to how it affected WY.
I am making sure I draw my sheep & moose tag and then I will never apply again for sheep or moose. I am going to drop Utah soon. I already dropped 3 other states (some because I drew tags). I am cutting apps to lower my costs. Even after cutting apps I am still paying 2x what I paid a decade ago. I guess I am "sticking it to the man" That does not seem to effective from where I am sitting.
What can NR really do that has any affect?