Legalized robbery that needs to stop.

[Archer86]

They should designate federal lands as their own hunting sectors and then using the current system allocate tags and fees irrespective of residency.

Your point is illogical. No one that I've seen has argued for changing the number of tags allocated, simply how they're allocated. If the number of tags are not changed then there should be no change to the impact on the herds.

It's a very logical what percentage of the tags should be go to residents and what should go to nr currently wyoming offers more big game tags in general out of all the western states except coloardo and maybe montana what does your states provide me for hunting I am guessing hardly any public land to hunt on.

I am guessing though you will say a even split and that residents of the state should have no advantage even though we live here pay taxes here even though it's not as much as other states I still pay taxes no matter what some of you belive it's not wyoming residents fault or any other state for that matter that gets a bigger return on there investment. Its like the stock market some make a poor decision and lose money some get rich. The residents of western states happen to be rich with big game tags and mountians to explorer.

 

[ThorM465]

It's a very logical what percentage of the tags should be go to residents and what should go to nr currently wyoming offers more big game tags in general out of all the western states except coloardo and maybe montana what does your states provide me for hunting I am guessing hardly any public land to hunt on.

I am guessing though you will say a even split and that residents of the state should have no advantage even though we live here pay taxes here even though it's not as much as other states I still pay taxes no matter what some of you belive it's not wyoming residents fault or any other state for that matter that gets a bigger return on there investment. Its like the stock market some make a poor decision and lose money some get rich. The residents of western states happen to be rich with big game tags and mountians to explorer.

No I'm not saying that. I think that WY should retain its sovereignty as a state and manage its STATE and PRIVATE lands as it sees fit. I do think WY is screwing over NRs at this point, but I would NOT want WY to give up its sovereignty to correct that.

This thread is WY centric. However, its not my intent to pick on WY, I hold my views for all states.

Couple of other counters to some points you've brought up. WY game management is by en large paid for by NR hunters. Yes, you pay taxes and contribute towards it, but its marginal in comparison. This isn't meant as an attack on you, its just a statement of fact.

The western states have rich public lands to explore and healthy big game because of federal policies enacted by Teddy Roosevelt. I'm very pro state and small fed, but the facts are that if it had been left to the western states we'd have very little land to explore and big game to hunt today.

 

[Gerbdog]

No I'm not saying that. I think that WY should retain its sovereignty as a state and manage its STATE and PRIVATE lands as it sees fit. I do think WY is screwing over NRs at this point, but I would NOT want WY to give up its sovereignty to correct that.

This thread is WY centric. However, its not my intent to pick on WY, I hold my views for all states.

Couple of other counters to some points you've brought up. WY game management is by en large paid for by NR hunters. Yes, you pay taxes and contribute towards it, but its marginal in comparison. This isn't meant as an attack on you, its just a statement of fact.

The western states have rich public lands to explore and healthy big game because of federal policies enacted by Teddy Roosevelt. I'm very pro state and small fed, but the facts are that if it had been left to the western states we'd have very little land to explore and big game to hunt today.

Thats truth. Hard to believe it but elk in the united states were down to the last 20K head or so just over a 100 years ago in this country. There were estimated only 500-1000 elk left in Colorado in 1910. Thank goodness they set aside land and put in regulations.

 

[wyogoat]

I agree with some of the NR sentiment on here. I think the cost of an NR preference point should be addressed. I think all states are increasing the cost of big game tags and if they aren’t, they will. It’s the supply and demand as mentioned above.
The wildlife resource has to be managed differently. There is a finite number of animals and none of us on here practice catch and release on deer, elk and antelope. It’s different than the fishing in fed land argument. I spend A LOT of time in the backcountry fishing and hunting. I’ve never seen anyone ten miles into the Winds kill a trout. Ever. It’s catch and release so that population doesn’t change drastically. Elk on the other hand has to be managed more conservatively.
I’ve admitted before the wilderness thing is the second best part about this state but to my knowledge, that’s the only fed land NR can’t access, correct? I see NR hunters all the time in NF so what’s the issue? You can’t hunt a little wilderness? Ok. Those guys stomping around my Greys River area Muley spot all have nonres plates. That’s part of it so not all fed land is off limits.
And Wyoming is far from a welfare state. Geez. Lots of federal money comes in for the reservations I’m sure and we are on our second of extremely fiscally conservative governors who I’m sure do what they can to make sure the state stays flush. I bet if you looked deep, Wyoming is among top 5 in the ability to support itself if needed. Last I heard it was third. The rare earth mineral powering the touch screen on the cell phone you’re using to read this probably came from Wyoming. That’s a commodity here.
What bothers me is the titles of these threads. Robbery? Come on. A tad dramatic right? Don’t like it, don’t partake.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Ur absoulutly right about the 90/10 moose sheep and mt goat not just Buzz and Rob there was a lot of residents who wanted 90/10 and so did Sy and WYOGA but it was just a bargaining chip to get 90/5/5... The 90/5/5 didn't come to light until later on after WYOGA rallied all the NR to help the ... It was the residents of Wyoming that stopped the 90/5/5 from happening don't kid Ur self if U think WYOGA is NR friends if U do might as well crawl in bed with the devil.... If there was a proposal of 100/0 WYOGA would be lobbing for there own cut of those tags for outfitter tags.... They don't give two shits about resident or nr dyi hunters..........

Yep. I wasn’t aware of the back room dealings regarding 90/5/5. WYOGA is an industry lobbying organization, nothing wrong with that. They have to defend the economic interests of their members- guides and outfitters. I am under no illusions that they are friends of NR hunters, it just so happens that most of their customers are NR hunters. They have to preserve some NR hunting opportunity- either through a NR allocation or a separate outfitter allocation/draw- to maintain their industry. I will say the only time I hear threats of a 100/0 allocation are in rants from people like Buzz (NR hunters are whiny, entitled losers!) and Rob Shaul (If you aren’t a 15th generation Wyomingite you suck! End all NR hunting!).

 

[wyogoat]

If it’s any consolation, I’ll likely never draw a moose or sheep tag either so we suffer the same…

 

[Archer86]

Couple of other counters to some points you've brought up. WY game management is by en large paid for by NR hunters. Yes, you pay taxes and contribute towards it, but its marginal in comparison. This isn't meant as an attack on you, its just a statement of fact.

The western states have rich public lands to explore and healthy big game because of federal policies enacted by Teddy Roosevelt. I'm very pro state and small fed, but the facts are that if it had been left to the western states we'd have very little land to explore and big game to hunt today.

So about roughly 180 thousand nr hunters pay more taxes then 600k wyoming residents and that determines that there should be a equal split of tags on federal lands? I would bet between teton and park county alone they pays more taxes then nr hunters. I am not taking it personal i hope this can stay away from that. As far as the points and license tags yup I agree nr pay more to fund gane and fish no denying that. I was against the special tag increase I opposed it multiple times I have family and friends the live out of state and would like them to enjoy wyoming as much as I get to.

If we didn't have the public lands out west we would be much like the Midwest and east coast lots of private and no recreation. It seams like western states are expected to be everyone's play ground and get nothing in return is what some want I am not just talking hunting. I assume they leave the tag allocations where they are wyoming currently issues out 40 to 50 thousand big game tags a year. The big 5 I had no skin in that it sucks they screwed nr that had put in for 15 plus years. But anyone under that had to see the amount of people applying and know it was a roll of the dice to even apply for those.

 

[LuvsFixedBlades]

I agree with some of the NR sentiment on here. I think the cost of an NR preference point should be addressed. I think all states are increasing the cost of big game tags and if they aren’t, they will. It’s the supply and demand as mentioned above.
The wildlife resource has to be managed differently. There is a finite number of animals and none of us on here practice catch and release on deer, elk and antelope. It’s different than the fishing in fed land argument. I spend A LOT of time in the backcountry fishing and hunting. I’ve never seen anyone ten miles into the Winds kill a trout. Ever. It’s catch and release so that population doesn’t change drastically. Elk on the other hand has to be managed more conservatively.
I’ve admitted before the wilderness thing is the second best part about this state but to my knowledge, that’s the only fed land NR can’t access, correct? I see NR hunters all the time in NF so what’s the issue? You can’t hunt a little wilderness? Ok. Those guys stomping around my Greys River area Muley spot all have nonres plates. That’s part of it so not all fed land is off limits.
And Wyoming is far from a welfare state. Geez. Lots of federal money comes in for the reservations I’m sure and we are on our second of extremely fiscally conservative governors who I’m sure do what they can to make sure the state stays flush. I bet if you looked deep, Wyoming is among top 5 in the ability to support itself if needed. Last I heard it was third. The rare earth mineral powering the touch screen on the cell phone you’re using to read this probably came from Wyoming. That’s a commodity here.
What bothers me is the titles of these threads. Robbery? Come on. A tad dramatic right? Don’t like it, don’t partake.

Comments that include "I'm sure" lots of money comes into the res' and "I'm sure" our conservative governor is keeping the state flush and "I bet if you look deep" aren't facts, my friend. Those are qualitative statements based on what you want to believe, not quantitative facts. WY has the highest public benefit spending in almost every category against the intermountain region AND nationally...in combination with the highest federal transfer revenue (fed funding) amongst both peer groups. Plus, zero corporate or individual income taxes.

That means Wyoming is 100% a welfare state. Sorry, I don't make the facts.

 

[wyogoat]

Comments that include "I'm sure" lots of money comes into the res' and "I'm sure" our conservative governor is keeping the state flush and "I bet if you look deep" aren't facts, my friend. Those are qualitative statements based on what you want to believe, not quantitative facts. WY has the highest public benefit spending in almost every category against the intermountain region AND nationally...in combination with the highest federal transfer revenue (fed funding) amongst both peer groups. Plus, zero corporate or individual income taxes.

That means Wyoming is 100% a welfare state. Sorry, I don't make the facts.

My friend, those are per capital stats. They don’t tell the true story of it all. We also have the highest HS graduation rates PER CAPITA and the highest suicide rates PER CAPITA. Are those stats correct? No. They’re skewed based on that one criteria. Just like what you showed.
In five mins of minimal effort I can find something supporting the earth is flat, does that make it so? You can find something to support whatever argument you want.
And factor in the federally supported Native American reservations the state has and maybe that will help understand that higher number. But that doesn’t support your argument. Friend.

 

[Nickman123]

Seems like the argument is that the system is fair because the state pays to manage the animals and non-residents don't pay state taxes. So, by that logic, anything that is managed or maintained by state or local money should be fair game to limit or deny access to non-residents. Or charge them way more money to use it.

 

[ThorM465]

My friend, those are per capital stats. They don’t tell the true story of it all. We also have the highest HS graduation rates PER CAPITA and the highest suicide rates PER CAPITA. Are those stats correct? No. They’re skewed based on that one criteria. Just like what you showed.
In five mins of minimal effort I can find something supporting the earth is flat, does that make it so? You can find something to support whatever argument you want.
And factor in the federally supported Native American reservations the state has and maybe that will help understand that higher number. But that doesn’t support your argument. Friend.

Brother if you're arguing against per capita stats you either don't understand stats or you're a scumbag trying to manipulate people. There really is no other option here. Wyoming has to small of a population to effectively analyze it any other way.

 

[wyogoat]

I understand them well enough to know they skew true statistics. The per capita changes everything and there are other factors at play regarding the federal funding that change that and don’t support your argument.
And leave out the name calling, you’re better than that.

 

[Archer86]

Comments that include "I'm sure" lots of money comes into the res' and "I'm sure" our conservative governor is keeping the state flush and "I bet if you look deep" aren't facts, my friend. Those are qualitative statements based on what you want to believe, not quantitative facts. WY has the highest public benefit spending in almost every category against the intermountain region AND nationally...in combination with the highest federal transfer revenue (fed funding) amongst both peer groups. Plus, zero corporate or individual income taxes.

That means Wyoming is 100% a welfare state. Sorry, I don't make the facts.

One thing that is great to see in those charts is look at what wyoming spends on the schools, roads, health care with those federal dollars investing in future generations and look where they spend significantly less money public welfare. Am I missing where it shows the federal tax dollars paid or is it not on there

Wyoming isn't the only state without a income tax. We do have a sales tax though

 

[Tod osier]

Comments that include "I'm sure" lots of money comes into the res' and "I'm sure" our conservative governor is keeping the state flush and "I bet if you look deep" aren't facts, my friend. Those are qualitative statements based on what you want to believe, not quantitative facts. WY has the highest public benefit spending in almost every category against the intermountain region AND nationally...in combination with the highest federal transfer revenue (fed funding) amongst both peer groups. Plus, zero corporate or individual income taxes.

That means Wyoming is 100% a welfare state. Sorry, I don't make the facts.

That is unfortunate that the figures that you use to prove your point have the the "Mountain region" defined to include "Minnesota". Obviously that they meant "Montana", but regardless, if they can't get the figure legend right, what else did they get wrong?

 

[ThorM465]

I understand them well enough to know they skew true statistics. The per capita changes everything and there are other factors at play regarding the federal funding that change that and don’t support your argument.
And leave out the name calling, you’re better than that.

It does change everything for the better or should I say it makes it more accurate.
I didn't call anyone a name unless you fall into the latter and then I stand by it.

What are these other factors exactly?

 

[wyogoat]

I stand by that you can skew anything to support any argument. Accurate or inaccurate. Just because you post something you googled doesn’t make it correct. That’s the point.
Federal funds come to Wyoming for a variety of reasons. Not because it’s a poor state or it has to be subsidized. The exact opposite I’d say after residing here. One argument I made is the reservations take a lot of federal funding so let’s agree to subtract that number. And that’s just one example.
Someone already found a flaw in your data but let’s ignore that.
You win. Roll Tide.

 

[KurtR]

They should designate federal lands as their own hunting sectors and then using the current system allocate tags and fees irrespective of residency.

Your point is illogical. No one that I've seen has argued for changing the number of tags allocated, simply how they're allocated. If the number of tags are not changed then there should be no change to the impact on the herds.

Who manages the game then the feds? That would work out good……..

 

[LuvsFixedBlades]

My friend, those are per capital stats. They don’t tell the true story of it all. We also have the highest HS graduation rates PER CAPITA and the highest suicide rates PER CAPITA. Are those stats correct? No. They’re skewed based on that one criteria. Just like what you showed.
In five mins of minimal effort I can find something supporting the earth is flat, does that make it so? You can find something to support whatever argument you want.
And factor in the federally supported Native American reservations the state has and maybe that will help understand that higher number. But that doesn’t support your argument. Friend.

Per capita isn't a criteria. It's a unit of measurement. If you have a state population of 1,000,000 people and 1,000 commit suicide, that's a 0.1% suicide rate. If California has 50M people and they have 10,000 suicides, that's 0.02%. Your state suicide rate is higher. Period, that's how it works. Same with HS graduation rate. Same with Federal funding.

There is no other way to come up with a "rate" without dividing the subject variable by the defined group size. Per capita numbers are actually more relevant than gross numbers, without defining the sample size, there is no benchmark for comparison. Per capita is an excellent metric for the point I'm making.

I get what you mean about the earth being flat example and anybody being able to argue anything, which is valid, but this isn't the same thing. I'm not sure why so many are denying the facts. Anybody who has facts to the contrary of what I just posted, since others seem to attribute this to me wanting to "prove my point", post up some tangible numbers from a legitimate source to prove me wrong. I'll be the first to admit it if you can find them, but I bet you don't.

What I posted came from the US Census Bureau. True, they screwed up and put Minnesota in their footnote instead of Montana within the mountain region. Throw out the mountain region then, just compare it to the rest of the country. Also, just because you live there doesn't mean you know anything about anything. All of your statements come from your assumptions, with nothing tangible to back it up.

 

[KurtR]

Could split nr tags up by how much federal land you have in your state. You have nothing to offer you get no tags. I think I should be able to hunt ducks on public land in Arkansas any time I want because we hatch all the ducks up north……….. sarcasm

 

[KurtR]

Per capita isn't a criteria. It's a unit of measurement. If you have a state population of 1,000,000 people and 1,000 commit suicide, that's a 0.1% suicide rate. If California has 50M people and they have 10,000 suicides, that's 0.02%. Your state suicide rate is higher. Period, that's how it works. Same with HS graduation rate. Same with Federal funding.

There is no other way to come up with a "rate" without dividing the subject variable by the defined group size. Per capita numbers are actually more relevant than gross numbers, without defining the sample size, there is no benchmark for comparison. Per capita is an excellent metric for the point I'm making.

I get what you mean about the earth being flat example and anybody being able to argue anything, which is valid, but this isn't the same thing. I'm not sure why so many are denying the facts. Anybody who has facts to the contrary of what I just posted, since others seem to attribute this to me wanting to "prove my point", post up some tangible numbers from a legitimate source to prove me wrong. I'll be the first to admit it if you can find them, but I bet you don't.

What I posted came from the US Census Bureau. True, they screwed up and put Minnesota in their footnote instead of Montana within the mountain region. Throw out the mountain region then, just compare it to the rest of the country. Also, just because you live there doesn't mean you know anything about anything. All of your statements come from your assumptions, with nothing tangible to back it up.

How much federal money goes to the reservations?