Another Wyoming Fee!

[wapitibob]

I believe he's talking about tag prices, Oregon doesn't charge for points and we don't use points for our oil tags (sheep/goats). A nr Elk license/tag in OR is going to be about $700, comparable to WY/UT/AZ and the hunting is not worth comparing. To your point, because we don't charge for points the actual cost for a NR to apply for all species in OR is substantially less than the cost to apply in WY.

 

[BuzzH]

Wyoming is about $850 non refundable to apply and get points for deer, elk, antelope, sheep, moose, goat, and bison. (no points for goat or bison) That's not applying for any female tags either. Your telling me it costs more in Oregon to apply then it does in Wyoming? I honestly doubt that. I buy a license in AZ, ID, NV, and not one of those states costs even $500 to apply in.



One other thing. The animals owned by the residents of the state live most of their lives on land owned by every citizen of the united states. Yet the citizens of the united states get zero compensation for the state owned animals living on their land. And a lot of those animals or areas most non res will never be able to hunt. So when I see some people say that we own the animals because we live here, yet those animals live on land I own. I could give two **** less if wolves or grizzlies are introduced and decimate the elk herd in an area. Why would I waste my time or money helping fight stuff like that when the residents of the state say you should feel privileged we allow you to pay $850 a year for the .05% chance to draw?

Here's your answer and if you don't want to support wildlife with your money, don't apply, I could give two ***** less.

YouTube

 

[dirtytough]

I believe he's talking about tag prices, Oregon doesn't charge for points and we don't use points for our oil tags (sheep/goats). A nr Elk license/tag in OR is going to be about $700, comparable to WY/UT/AZ and the hunting is not worth comparing. To your point, because we don't charge for points the actual cost for a NR to apply for all species in OR is substantially less than the cost to apply in WY.

He mentions a non refundable license fee and applying? I never saw tag fees mentioned anywhere?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dirtytough]

Here's your answer and if you don't want to support wildlife with your money, don't apply, I could give two ***** less.

YouTube

I’ve watched that before. And I don’t remember it addressing animals owned by the state residing on land owned by everyone. I’ll rewatch it when I have time. Thanks.

And you must care since you responded directly about me not supporting wildlife. Plus I’m probably going to move there. When I do I’ll act like you and tell all these non res they need to appreciate the fact I as a resident of Wyoming allow them to spend $850 just to apply for wildlife that is residing on land they own


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CorbLand]

I’ve watched that before. And I don’t remember it addressing animals owned by the state residing on land owned by everyone. I’ll rewatch it when I have time. Thanks.

And you must care since you responded directly about me not supporting wildlife. Plus I’m probably going to move there. When I do I’ll act like you and tell all these non res they need to appreciate the fact I as a resident of Wyoming allow them to spend $850 just to apply for wildlife that is residing on land they own


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wildlife is managed by the State. It doesn’t matter what land they are on, the citizen of that State “own” them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dirtytough]

Wildlife is managed by the State. It doesn’t matter what land they are on, the citizen of that State “own” them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So if it doesn’t matter why do states give vouchers, pay for damage, put up fences, etc to compensate landowners that have wildlife on their land?

The wildlife is owned by people. Since they own the animals but don’t own all the land the animals are residing on why shouldn’t the people that own the land get compensated for it? Just like when a rancher runs cattle on federal land. Or when he runs cattle on state land. He pays and the landowners (US citizens) get compensated for the animals he has on our land. That would be extreme obviously. But I keep reading how these animals are owned by the citizens of the state. So if they want to declare ownership at every opportunity maybe they should quit freeloading.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

I’ve watched that before. And I don’t remember it addressing animals owned by the state residing on land owned by everyone. I’ll rewatch it when I have time. Thanks.

And you must care since you responded directly about me not supporting wildlife. Plus I’m probably going to move there. When I do I’ll act like you and tell all these non res they need to appreciate the fact I as a resident of Wyoming allow them to spend $850 just to apply for wildlife that is residing on land they own


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, it does absolutely address wildlife being held in trust for the citizens of the State and that wildlife "ownership" has no correlation to where said wildlife resides (private, State, or Federal land). Many good reasons for that and the courts have upheld that via many lawsuits and litigation mentioned in the link I provided.

Its already been pointed out that many states allow NR's no access to their wildlife, Wyoming could do the same thing.

Further you may want to look into S. 339, the reaffirming of a States rights to not only Regulate the wildlife within its borders, but also the right to discriminate against NR via price or even to allow ANY NR access to its wildlife.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-109s339rs/pdf/BILLS-109s339rs.pdf

Passed in 2005, in response to the Taulman lawsuit against Arizona where Taulman(USO) claimed NR's were being discriminated against based on the Dormant Commerce Clause in Article I.

No, I really don't care one way or the other if you apply for tags in Wyoming, or Alaska, or Oklahoma, or any other state. Doesn't impact my decision to do so, other than perhaps making my odds of acquiring tags as a NR easier. If you don't like the facts of State Rights or how any State chooses to regulate their wildlife, don't apply, simple as that.

I apply in 10-12 States many of which I've been doing so for 20-38 years, and in the case of some, have never drawn a single tag (NV, UT, and ID).

I view my application fees and required hunting licenses as a contribution to help those States take care of, manage, and protect wildlife. That way if I do happen to draw, I'll have some quality hunting opportunities. If I don't ever draw, that's OK too...I care about wildlife and I'm willing to apply and buy licenses, even if my contribution doesn't directly benefit me via a tag.

In the case of some States, I've been the beneficiary of receiving a license that many have applied for a lot longer than I have, and contributed way more than I have (Arizona Desert Sheep, Musk ox in AK), to name a few. I appreciate that those States even allowed me to apply, let alone hunt those animals when many Residents will never get the opportunity.

Frankly, as a NR I not only believe I should pay more, its within the law for any State that I don't reside in to discriminate against me when it comes to NR licenses to hunt and fish.

I'm also very grateful for any State that allows me any kind of access to their wildlife, as has been noted, they aren't required to.

If you think you have a case that land ownership should grant you equal access to a State's wildlife, as Randy said, file a lawsuit and knock yourself out...

 

[dirtytough]

Ok I watched the video again. And again I never heard Randy point out where it says in the constitution that animals owned by each state have a right to be on land not owned by the owners of that animal? Randy also pointed out that it would suck if the animals are attached to the land because then the private land owners would get the same benefits as the public landowners which would be owning the wildlife residing on that land.

So if private landowners would get the same benefits as public land owners, then shouldn’t public landowners get the same rights as private landowners which would entitle us to compensation, vouchers, etc for the animals residing on the land we own?

Can someone please show me in the constitution where it says wildlife owned by the residents of a state have a constitutional right to live on federally owned land? If that is in the constitution then I’m completely wrong. But if it’s not in there then please quit freeloading


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dirtytough]

Yes, it does absolutely address wildlife being held in trust for the citizens of the State and that wildlife "ownership" has no correlation to where said wildlife resides (private, State, or Federal land). Many good reasons for that and the courts have upheld that via many lawsuits and litigation mentioned in the link I provided.

Its already been pointed out that many states allow NR's no access to their wildlife, Wyoming could do the same thing.

Further you may want to look into S. 339, the reaffirming of a States rights to not only Regulate the wildlife within its borders, but also the right to discriminate against NR via price or even to allow ANY NR access to its wildlife.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-109s339rs/pdf/BILLS-109s339rs.pdf

Passed in 2005, in response to the Taulman lawsuit against Arizona where Taulman(USO) claimed NR's were being discriminated against based on the Dormant Commerce Clause in Article I.

No, I really don't care one way or the other if you apply for tags in Wyoming, or Alaska, or Oklahoma, or any other state. Doesn't impact my decision to do so, other than perhaps making my odds of acquiring tags as a NR easier. If you don't like the facts of State Rights or how any State chooses to regulate their wildlife, don't apply, simple as that.

I apply in 10-12 States many of which I've been doing so for 20-38 years, and in the case of some, have never drawn a single tag (NV, UT, and ID).

I view my application fees and required hunting licenses as a contribution to help those States take care of, manage, and protect wildlife. That way if I do happen to draw, I'll have some quality hunting opportunities. If I don't ever draw, that's OK too...I care about wildlife and I'm willing to apply and buy licenses, even if my contribution doesn't directly benefit me via a tag.

In the case of some States, I've been the beneficiary of receiving a license that many have applied for a lot longer than I have, and contributed way more than I have (Arizona Desert Sheep, Musk ox in AK), to name a few. I appreciate that those States even allowed me to apply, let alone hunt those animals when many Residents will never get the opportunity.

Frankly, as a NR I not only believe I should pay more, its within the law for any State that I don't reside in to discriminate against me when it comes to NR licenses to hunt and fish.

I'm also very grateful for any State that allows me any kind of access to their wildlife, as has been noted, they aren't required to.

If you think you have a case that land ownership should grant you equal access to a State's wildlife, as Randy said, file a lawsuit and knock yourself out...

I’m not arguing that the states don’t own the animals or can say who and how much. I’m arguing that the states don’t have a constitutional right to run their animals wherever they want. The animals are allowed to live their thanks to the kindness of the non res from 49 other states.

And like my last post if the animals were linked to the land and the private landowners would own them also. Then doesn’t that mean since private landowners get compensated for wildlife residing on their land shouldn’t we get compensated for being so gracious and allowing the state to run their animals on our land?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OR Archer]

Wyoming is about $850 non refundable to apply and get points for deer, elk, antelope, sheep, moose, goat, and bison. (no points for goat or bison) That's not applying for any female tags either. Your telling me it costs more in Oregon to apply then it does in Wyoming? I honestly doubt that. I buy a license in AZ, ID, NV, and not one of those states costs even $500 to apply in.

Let me be a little more clear. For species I want to build points for in Wy that are actually attainable like elk, deer, and antelope I can simply just buy a point without having to apply after Aug1 through Oct 31. That costs me roughly $140. So in comparing that to my home state of Oregon for a non resident its still cheaper.

There's simply no need to apply for moose, goat, sheep, or bison in Wy as a non resident in my opinion. Unless you started building points for those species that have points available at the inception, I think they're simply unattainable and a waste of money.

Does that make sense on my perspective now?

 

[dirtytough]

Let me be a little more clear. For species I want to build points for in Wy that are actually attainable like elk, deer, and antelope I can simply just buy a point without having to apply after Aug1 through Oct 31. That costs me roughly $140. So in comparing that to my home state of Oregon for a non resident its still cheaper.

There's simply no need to apply for moose, goat, sheep, or bison in Wy as a non resident in my opinion. Unless you started building points for those species that have points available at the inception, I think they're simply unattainable and a waste of money.

Does that make sense on my perspective now?

Yep makes it less then the $850. Oregon isn’t really that expensive unless I’m looking at it wrong? $167 for the license and $8 per species to apply. That would be $207 to apply for sheep, antelope, goat, deer, and elk. $207 to apply for 5 species compared to $124 to get points for 3 species. Add another $45 if you apply which puts you at $169 for 3 species.

Maybe I’m missing other fees Oregon charges you to apply?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chucklehead]

Yes, it does absolutely address wildlife being held in trust for the citizens of the State and that wildlife "ownership" has no correlation to where said wildlife resides (private, State, or Federal land). Many good reasons for that and the courts have upheld that via many lawsuits and litigation mentioned in the link I provided.

Its already been pointed out that many states allow NR's no access to their wildlife, Wyoming could do the same thing.

Further you may want to look into S. 339, the reaffirming of a States rights to not only Regulate the wildlife within its borders, but also the right to discriminate against NR via price or even to allow ANY NR access to its wildlife.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-109s339rs/pdf/BILLS-109s339rs.pdf

Passed in 2005, in response to the Taulman lawsuit against Arizona where Taulman(USO) claimed NR's were being discriminated against based on the Dormant Commerce Clause in Article I.

No, I really don't care one way or the other if you apply for tags in Wyoming, or Alaska, or Oklahoma, or any other state. Doesn't impact my decision to do so, other than perhaps making my odds of acquiring tags as a NR easier. If you don't like the facts of State Rights or how any State chooses to regulate their wildlife, don't apply, simple as that.

I apply in 10-12 States many of which I've been doing so for 20-38 years, and in the case of some, have never drawn a single tag (NV, UT, and ID).

I view my application fees and required hunting licenses as a contribution to help those States take care of, manage, and protect wildlife. That way if I do happen to draw, I'll have some quality hunting opportunities. If I don't ever draw, that's OK too...I care about wildlife and I'm willing to apply and buy licenses, even if my contribution doesn't directly benefit me via a tag.

In the case of some States, I've been the beneficiary of receiving a license that many have applied for a lot longer than I have, and contributed way more than I have (Arizona Desert Sheep, Musk ox in AK), to name a few. I appreciate that those States even allowed me to apply, let alone hunt those animals when many Residents will never get the opportunity.

Frankly, as a NR I not only believe I should pay more, its within the law for any State that I don't reside in to discriminate against me when it comes to NR licenses to hunt and fish.

I'm also very grateful for any State that allows me any kind of access to their wildlife, as has been noted, they aren't required to.

If you think you have a case that land ownership should grant you equal access to a State's wildlife, as Randy said, file a lawsuit and knock yourself out...

Well said Buzz.

 

[BuzzH]

Ok I watched the video again. And again I never heard Randy point out where it says in the constitution that animals owned by each state have a right to be on land not owned by the owners of that animal? Randy also pointed out that it would suck if the animals are attached to the land because then the private land owners would get the same benefits as the public landowners which would be owning the wildlife residing on that land.

So if private landowners would get the same benefits as public land owners, then shouldn’t public landowners get the same rights as private landowners which would entitle us to compensation, vouchers, etc for the animals residing on the land we own?

Can someone please show me in the constitution where it says wildlife owned by the residents of a state have a constitutional right to live on federally owned land? If that is in the constitution then I’m completely wrong. But if it’s not in there then please quit freeloading


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nobody owns wildlife, its held in trust by the State for the citizens of the State.

There is one exception to wildlife ownership, and that is when its brought to bag legally and tagged with a State issued license, then you in fact, do OWN the wildlife. Otherwise its held in trust, public trust doctrine and all that.

Please show me in the Constitution where it says a State Wildlife cant use Federal land or that compensation is a requirement for that wildlife to be on federal land.

You aren't entitled to a States wildlife resources...neither is a Landowner, outfitter, or anyone else. The citizens of the State decide who, what, where, and when they allow consumptive use of wildlife. Period.

The STATES have allowed, via their state granted authority, to compensate landowners via vouchers, fencing, or other compensation. But, there is still a requirement of a State issued license to be able to hunt on the vouchers and still does not convey ownership of the wildlife to the landowner in any way.

Finally, there are congressional Acts that require the Federal Land Management agencies to provide, enhance, and conserve wildlife, almost exclusively via habitat management. Sikes Act for a good place to start for the requirements of the Interior, and NWRSAA for National wildlife Refuges. Similar requirements and acts have been passed by congress that require the USDA/USFS to also do the same. In the language of those Acts is specifically reiterates that "basic authority and responsibility for management of fish and resident wildlife on such lands remains with the State."

These Acts and Federal Land Management regulations are some of the reasons why the Federal Government is not required to charge, and does not charge, the State for its wildlife that lives/uses Federal Land...rightfully so.

 

[SW hunter]

This is starting to feel like a Bundy Ranch type discussion. Grazing fees, states rights, referencing the constitution, “my” federal land that I own a piece of.

I am glad that back on page 1 someone let everybody else know Wyoming fees are increasing. Thank you whoever did that.

 

[OR Archer]

Yep makes it less then the $850. Oregon isn’t really that expensive unless I’m looking at it wrong? $167 for the license and $8 per species to apply. That would be $207 to apply for sheep, antelope, goat, deer, and elk. $207 to apply for 5 species compared to $124 to get points for 3 species. Add another $45 if you apply which puts you at $169 for 3 species.

Maybe I’m missing other fees Oregon charges you to apply?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Comes down to the value of what you’re getting for your dollar. Oregon is a waste of your money. Even as a resident. The hunting is on a decline and point creep is aweful. So there again Wy is a better value.