Lobbying Wyoming game and fish negatively affecting non-resident elk hunters

[Rifleman86]

I agree residents are not a lot better.

But for you to claim resident hunters have done nothing for nrs is not true either.

Wyoming has language in regulation that allows any tags not drawn in the initial draw to drop to nr initial draw. Meaning that several thousand tags reserved for residents drop directly to nr initial draw.

We also allow nrs the same chance at the second draw as residents, several thousand more tags available to nrs.

Our limited quota elk, deer, and pronghorn are 80-20 split, substantially higher than most other states.

Myself and a few other residents pushed the nr draw date back for elk. Prior to that, any new commission approved elk hunts were unavailable for nr applicants the first year. Meaning nrs were getting hosed out of quality hunts. My NR nephew and 3 of my nr friends drew great elk tags last year that they wouldn't have even been able to apply for it we wouldn't have changed the regulation.

So again, I think it's pretty unfair, and frankly untrue to say residents do nothing for nrs here.

No thanks necessary.

I’d agree, residents have done a lot for nonresidents in the past in many states. As you well know MT for example got rid of outfitter tags via ballot initiative years ago.

My issue is that the whole “nonresidents are ruining my hunting” shtick is the complaint dejour of every hunter in the country at the moment, to include my own state. “All those nonresidents from Vermont and New Hampshire are ruining the Wayne NF” is something I hear quite often here. Yeah, opening day is a zoo, but that’s what happens when you have a state with nearly 12 million people, OTC tags, and a week long gun season. Bottom line, it’s not a small percentage of NR fault. In fact, they do a great job making up for all the lost revenue from free resident landowner tags, and boost the local economy.

Sure, in a few cases limiting NR tags further is probably necessary both biologically and socially. CO OTC archery is probably a great example of this.

But increasingly we’re seeing legislation that isn’t biologically based being put forth to increasingly either price out, privatize, or limit nonresident hunting. This is of course welcome to the resident who blames all his unfilled tags on the one out of state plate at the trailhead. When those of us who have been giving thousands to state fish and game agencies for decades for a fraction of the opportunities say “wait a sec, can’t we get a small say in this since we’ve been footing a good part of the bill for so long?”

In turn we get told by almost everyone, to include those in the conservation world who are supposed to be our advocates, tell us it’s none of our business, and we’re selfish for suggesting otherwise or trying to find a means to have a voice.

I think anyone could see how that would be frustrating at the very least.

Bottom line I don’t think any nonresident guy posting here is asking for the world, equal price tags to a nonresident, 50/50 opportunities or matching otc opportunities. If they are, they are dead wrong. Literally the only thing I really want changed is getting rid of outfitter preference and the WY wilderness rule. Other than that I’m completely ok with the price I pay for tags and the amount that are allocated.

But a lot of us see the writing on the wall of where this shit is headed, and ignoring the problem, burying our heads in the sand, or saying “this is how we’ve always done it and it can’t change” or worse yet pointing fingers at each other is going to be disastrous for all of us in the long run.

 

[Bighorner]

I really havent seen the NR hate in the field you are talking about, maybe I run with a different crowd.

What I do see is a ton of complaining and quit frankly beating a dead horse, by key board warriors.

If anything has put a bad taste in my mouth it has been NR wanting to make changes to a resource that is very clearly not theirs to meddle in. I dont buy burgers from McDonald's and the bitch and moan when they stop the Mcrib. I get that your pissed. Everyone does. But you and a few others are doing far more harm than good in furthering sympathy for non residents. You do not have representatives in our legislature. You have paid for a lottery ticket. Go ask maga millions for your money back and let us know how it went. I dont complain about lobster quotas in Maine or Osceolas in Florida, or the speed limit in West Virgina.

You have oppertunity. The resource is shrinking for everyone. Put your time into habitat where it does good. Not the internet where nothing really changes. You are not winning my support by just putting you hand out. I will be at my next local fish and game meeting. If you can make it, please feel free to introduce yourself.

Stop digging.

 

[BuzzH]

I’d agree, residents have done a lot for nonresidents in the past in many states. As you well know MT for example got rid of outfitter tags via ballot initiative years ago.

My issue is that the whole “nonresidents are ruining my hunting” shtick is the complaint dejour of every hunter in the country at the moment, to include my own state. “All those nonresidents from Vermont and New Hampshire are ruining the Wayne NF” is something I hear quite often here. Yeah, opening day is a zoo, but that’s what happens when you have a state with nearly 12 million people, OTC tags, and a week long gun season. Bottom line, it’s not a small percentage of NR fault. In fact, they do a great job making up for all the lost revenue from free resident landowner tags, and boost the local economy.

Sure, in a few cases limiting NR tags further is probably necessary both biologically and socially. CO OTC archery is probably a great example of this.

But increasingly we’re seeing legislation that isn’t biologically based being put forth to increasingly either price out, privatize, or limit nonresident hunting. This is of course welcome to the resident who blames all his unfilled tags on the one out of state plate at the trailhead. When those of us who have been giving thousands to state fish and game agencies for decades for a fraction of the opportunities say “wait a sec, can’t we get a small say in this since we’ve been footing a good part of the bill for so long?”

In turn we get told by almost everyone, to include those in the conservation world who are supposed to be our advocates, tell us it’s none of our business, and we’re selfish for suggesting otherwise or trying to find a means to have a voice.

I think anyone could see how that would be frustrating at the very least.

Bottom line I don’t think any nonresident guy posting here is asking for the world, equal price tags to a nonresident, 50/50 opportunities or matching otc opportunities. If they are, they are dead wrong. Literally the only thing I really want changed is getting rid of outfitter preference and the WY wilderness rule. Other than that I’m completely ok with the price I pay for tags and the amount that are allocated.

But a lot of us see the writing on the wall of where this shit is headed, and ignoring the problem, burying our heads in the sand, or saying “this is how we’ve always done it and it can’t change” or worse yet pointing fingers at each other is going to be disastrous for all of us in the long run.

Outfitters get no preference in Wyoming and the wilderness guide law is something I agree with you about.

For the record, NR's of WY receive well past their tag allocations. Over 50% of total pronghorn tags, way past 20% of the available deer tags, and 13k elk tags that have a cap of 7250.

Taking that it consideration, I don't see how any NR has a legitimate gripe about Wyoming Residents wanting 90% of sheep, goat, moose, bison, and hopefully soon, grizzly bear tags. Its in line with what other states offer for ALL species.

 

[Rifleman86]

Outfitters get no preference in Wyoming and the wilderness guide law is something I agree with you about.

For the record, NR's of WY receive well past their tag allocations. Over 50% of total pronghorn tags, way past 20% of the available deer tags, and 13k elk tags that have a cap of 7250.

Taking that it consideration, I don't see how any NR has a legitimate gripe about Wyoming Residents wanting 90% of sheep, goat, moose, bison, and hopefully soon, grizzly bear tags. Its in line with what other states offer for ALL species.

Buzz I don’t think we’re all that off on what we would like to see. I don’t love 90/10, but I even suggested it as the “minimum” I’d like to see nonresident opportunities be set at if I could.

My big issue is really the outfitter stuff at the moment. I’d love to find a realistic way to fight that.

That said I am deeply concerned about where we’re headed. Nonresidents have turned into the scapegoats for piss poor management in a lot of states, not just the west. I think we all should be concerned about that trend resident and nonresident alike. I personally think finding a way to give non residents small voice in state management might be a good thing.

I’m open to being wrong there, state management has been very good for all of us for a long time and I’m not entirely sure what the solution would be for that or what it would look like. But I hope we can get past the internet bickering and work toward solutions that increase all of our opportunities.

 

[sneaky]

Maybe your state should enact tag preference for the citizens of your state.

His state doubled NR tag prices a couple years ago... because get this, residents were bitching about nonresidents. Weird huh?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Wyobohunter]

His state doubled NR tag prices a couple years ago... because get this, residents were bitching about nonresidents. Weird huh?

I feel that hunting in another state is a luxery activity and it should be expected that price and availability of tags will reflect that fact. Maybe we can give him a pass and not start a thread ranting about it

I, as a non-resident of Ohio, solemnly swear to not contact Ohio politicians or Game and Fish officials to whine about how they manage their game.

Hold me to it.

 

[gonhunting247]

What I do see, is that every time a NR fee is raised, a quota is dropped, etc. every NR on every hunting board absolutely losing their minds.

Really, every NR?
I think it's actually a fairly small percentage on both sides of this argument R/NR that are going back and forth on the internet.

 

[Wyobohunter]

Really, every NR?
I think it's actually a fairly small percentage on both sides of this argument R/NR that are going back and forth on the internet.

I believe he was being facetious. Chill buddy

 

[sneaky]

I feel that hunting in another state is a luxery activity and it should be expected that price and availability of tags will reflect that fact. Maybe we can give him a pass and not start a thread ranting about it

I, as a non-resident of Ohio, solemnly swear to not contact Ohio politicians or Game and Fish officials to whine about how they manage their game.

Hold me to it.

It absolutely is a luxury, but he's acting like it's just a western phenomenon with residents complaining about nonresidents and raising prices. That attitude and behavior isn't limited to the western states, and I would wager he was perfectly OK with Ohio raising their NR license and tag prices. Him starting a thread on here complaining about that very same thing out here is the pot calling the kettle black.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[gonhunting247]

I believe he was being facetious. Chill buddy

I'm good, thanks Though .

 

[QuackAttack]

It’s time to amend Pittman-Robertson and apply a fairness test to states, one that removes federal dollars from states that discriminate against non residents who are clearly paying the bulk of those PR dollars.


Write your rep and directly ask for it.

 

[sndmn11]

It’s time to amend Pittman-Robertson and apply a fairness test to states, one that removes federal dollars from states that discriminate against non residents who are clearly paying the bulk of those PR dollars.


Write your rep and directly ask for it.

Is there a state that has license allocation and prices between residents and non-residents the same?

 

[Wyobohunter]

Is there a state that has license allocation and prices between residents and non-residents the same?

I think they only see it as unfair because most of us (in the West) have no interest in what the leastern states have to offer. So, for example, I really don’t care if Missouri makes it expensive or difficult for me to hunt. I have no interest in trading what we have for what they have. I think if they fealt the same way and loved it where they live these threads wouldn’t exist.

The only recourse they wishfully mention is defunding public lands. Again, sorry about your luck Illinois, it’s a bummer we let all of that land go to private hands but there’s no taking it back. You are welcome to come hike, camp etc on our public lands. Those belong to you as well as they do me.

 

[sndmn11]

I think they only see it as unfair because most of us (in the West) have no interest in what the leastern states have to offer. So, for example, I really don’t care if misery makes it expensive or difficult for me to hunt. I have no interest in trading what we have for what they have. I think if they fealt the same way these threads wouldn’t exist.

I was asking to learn if every person was supposed to write their Rep. asking for all 50 states to be punished.

 

[Wyobohunter]

I was asking to learn if every person was supposed to write their Rep. asking for all 50 states to be punished.

I gotcha. I was using your question for momentum to reply to quack attack.

 

[gonhunting247]

I think changing PR dollars, selling public land etc. is a terribly slippery slope. The last thing I'd do is give up public land.
One of the amazing things about the west is the amount of space we are all free to roam. In the USA we are afforded so much opportunity to hunt. With more and more people, poor habitat, less habitat, disease, predator issues etc. it is a given that with more demand for less resource, we will all have a little less opportunity. That doesn't mean we should throw in the towel, just look at it from all sides and do what you can to make positive changes. I've been putting in for out of state hunts for a long time and every system has changed along the way.
I understand both sides frustration, but IMO we all need to be careful what we wish for. I have 19 points for moose in WY, so of course it's a little frustrating, but I get the residents wanting a R/NR split more in line with other western states too. If I had a great answer I'd be the first one to give it, but I don't think there is a good answer for everyone at this stage. WY is still a great place to hunt with a lot of opportunity, so I'm going to enjoy it while I can, as well as do what I can to see that my kids and grandkids can also.

 

[tdhanses]

Is there a state that has license allocation and prices between residents and non-residents the same?

I doubt it but truthfully there may be one. I would be all for everyone paying the same, states would have to set their own prices obviously but that wouldn’t be fair to the lower income residents.

Although hunting started out as a means to feed ones family, not sure it’s cheaper then a grocery store anymore for most and many just donate the meat because they aren’t fond of it which is insane to me, not that it doesn’t go to a good cause but I just don’t see how anyone would not eat what they kill and just kill to kill.

 

[QuackAttack]

I was asking to learn if every person was supposed to write their Rep. asking for all 50 states to be punished.

If you call equality, punishment…but that seems to be a foreign concept to a few people…equality.


The bulk of your PR dollars come from highly populated eastern states…the ones folks with your attitude mock. Ok, pay your own bills.


Now watch your precious license costs and access fees.

 

[sndmn11]

If you call equality, punishment…but that seems to be a foreign concept to a few people…equality.


The bulk of your PR dollars come from highly populated eastern states…the ones folks with your attitude mock. Ok, pay your own bills.


Now watch your precious license costs and access fees.

Is there a state that has the same license costs for both residents and non-residents?

You are asking people to lobby for ending the PR act because that answer is "no". Every state charges non-residents more to hunt and fish than residents.

Equality already exists. Every state has the right to manage its own wildlife. Every adult (ignoring those bound by corrections or military servitude) has the opportunity to reside where they wish. I chose the word punishment because it would be an action in response to the rights above being exercised.

 

[QuackAttack]

No. Equality includes equality of access under the law.

it’s not about license cost- it’s the abject inability entire segments of American citizens to access a public resource that they are being taxed to fund.

The solution is to give states like WY exactly what they ask for- control…but that means no outside money because you don’t get to fund your “public” resource but deny the public access.