The future of NR hunting in Wyoming

[Jethro]

There is no hunting license sale equation in the pr fund. Might want to read a little into that the pr fund is only funded from firearm , ammo , archery equipment, and firearm parts.

States choose how they make you apply and what you have to purchase to apply in said state and it has nothing to do with the pr fund

Number of hunting licenses sold is a main component in the PR fund distribution equation. Buying a license just to apply helps the states receive more funds.

 

[Archer86]

Number of hunting licenses sold is a main component in the PR fund distribution equation. Buying a license just to apply helps the states receive more funds.

It's a component not the main. He was saying that the license fees where tied pr funds not the number of license sold those are different things.

And now that just proves the point that all you guys saying that pr funds should be based on the amount of public access to hunting tags it IS.

Current pr funds distributed

Wildlife Restoration activities according to a formula based half on the ratio of their land area to the total U.S. land area, and half based on the number of paid hunting license holders in the state compared to the total number of paid hunting license holders in the U.S. The latter obviously creates an incentive to maximize hunting license sales to obtain more Pittman-Robertson Act funding

So they are currently funding based on the amount of licenses they issued which is what most of you wanted out of pr funds so what's the problem now!

 

[Trackerbacker]

It's a component not the main. He was saying that the license fees where tied pr funds not the number of license sold those are different things.

And now that just proves the point that all you guys saying that pr funds should be based on the amount of public access to hunting tags it IS.

Current pr funds distributed

Wildlife Restoration activities according to a formula based half on the ratio of their land area to the total U.S. land area, and half based on the number of paid hunting license holders in the state compared to the total number of paid hunting license holders in the U.S. The latter obviously creates an incentive to maximize hunting license sales to obtain more Pittman-Robertson Act funding

So they are currently funding based on the amount of licenses they issued which is what most of you wanted out of pr funds so what's the problem now!

Number of hunting licenses sold is a main component in the PR fund distribution equation. Buying a license just to apply helps the states receive more funds.

"You can obviously bake a cake without eggs and butter, they aren't the main ingredients"

If 10% of tags are NR, your allocation of NR derived funds (relative to context) in any capacity, should be 10% of the formulas end value, no?

Reason: if PR and other funds are based on how many purchase/apply, but do not draw tags, then the formula should be representative of who actually drew tags, not applied/purchased points.

Example, 100,000 NR purchase a license, but 1000 draw a tag, PR=more money for less access.

If 1000 draw a tag, 1000 should be used to dictate NR funds, not 100,000, that's responsible allocation and fiduciary to the NR funds.

I'm not in favor of money grab with little access to the resource.

If it's all who apply, resident or NR, then both parties should be in the same draw pool, price tier, etc.

 

[Archer86]

"You can obviously bake a cake without eggs and butter, they aren't the main ingredients"

If 10% of tags are NR, your allocation of NR derived funds (relative to context) in any capacity, should be 10% of the formulas end value, no?

Reason: if PR and other funds are based on how many purchase/apply, but do not draw tags, then the formula should be representative of who actually drew tags, not applied/purchased points.

Example, 100,000 NR purchase a license, but 1000 draw a tag, PR=more money for less access.

If 1000 draw a tag, 1000 should be used to dictate NR funds, not 100,000, that's responsible allocation and fiduciary to the NR funds.

I'm not in favor of money grab with little access to the resource.

If it's all who apply, resident or NR, then both parties should be in the same draw pool, price tier, etc.

Can you please show me where it shows in pr funds where it was set up for nr tag allocation? It doesn't it.

But it is all ready capped no state shall recieve more then 5 percent of the total budget in the wildlife restoration fund piece which is the main funding piece the other side of it is capped at 3 percent.

If we are going to go through funding based on tags allocation to nr then I would like to see funding based for land mass changed to the percentage of public land that is accessible for public use not just hunting.

Why are we giving texas $46,013,307 when they have 1 percent public land sounds like a bad return on investment

 

[Trackerbacker]

Can you please show me where it shows in pr funds where it was set up for nr tag allocation? It doesn't it.

But it is all ready capped no state shall recieve more then 5 percent of the total budget in the wildlife restoration fund piece which is the main funding piece the other side of it is capped at 3 percent.

If we are going to go through funding based on tags allocation to nr then I would like to see funding based for land mass changed to the percentage of public land that is accessible for public use not just hunting.

Why are we giving texas $46,013,307 when they have 1 percent public land sounds like a bad return on investment

You won't hear me complain on that

 

[Hnthrdr]

"You can obviously bake a cake without eggs and butter, they aren't the main ingredients"

If 10% of tags are NR, your allocation of NR derived funds (relative to context) in any capacity, should be 10% of the formulas end value, no?

Reason: if PR and other funds are based on how many purchase/apply, but do not draw tags, then the formula should be representative of who actually drew tags, not applied/purchased points.

Example, 100,000 NR purchase a license, but 1000 draw a tag, PR=more money for less access.

If 1000 draw a tag, 1000 should be used to dictate NR funds, not 100,000, that's responsible allocation and fiduciary to the NR funds.

I'm not in favor of money grab with little access to the resource.

If it's all who apply, resident or NR, then both parties should be in the same draw pool, price tier, etc.

The only limiting these days seems to be doing it by creating some financial barrier which I don’t totally agree with, but what are states supposed to do? Do you want tags for average units turn into powerball lotto tickets? That is the trajectory. Until some of the obsession with western hunting dies down or the economy takes a major digger. How do you limit who enters the draw if you make the barrier next to nothing? Points skyrocket and then hunting is even more limited, and you wait several years for marginal units

 

[SummitsCalling]

We can't hunt grizzly because there are listed under the Esa come on you know dang well the feds will do what they want alaska has so much control huh didn't they just shut down some sheep hunting and they are not even listed on the Esa. Just wait brown bear ban headed your way.

Alaska is mostly otc because it's to expensive to access. Maybe we should fund some big road project in there so we can get some nr in there by the thousands and see how you like it then

Then you defend the guide rule. I think wyomings wilderness rule should go. Last I checked though moose and caribou are located in the same area as brown bear in alaska so please explain again how it's so dangerous yet nr can go hunt moose and caribou all they want.

Then pr funds first you implied it should be based of population numbers that contribute but now it's land mass that should justify allocation. so its whatever fits your agenda really got it!

Lots of areas get shutdown, huge problems with the subsistence boards overriding common sense. Bears won't be banned in AK, this isn't WY or Canada . Part of the point I was making is less hunters = less votes. That's where you get wolves and bear hunting banned by individuals who have no common sense. Like wolves being introduced into CO by vote.

AK is not expensive to access, $2k NR elk tag in WY is cheap? Cheaper if not on par with someone driving from the east coast or other states to WY to hunt.

I was not referring to Grizzs as being the reason the guide rule was in place, I'm actually against outfitter welfare in every form. AK is not a hospital place, weather and the environment kills very experienced people who are prepared yearly, not the animals.

I don't know the perfect solution for P-R allocation but its current form can be improved. I was pointing out land mass vs $ allocated as a metric. You mentioned Texas, without research my initial guess is a lot of the money goes to the coastal regions/bird migration. Public land hunting leaves alot to be desired there. I personally would like to see hunting allocation as part of the equation.

There is no hunting license sale equation in the pr fund. Might want to read a little into that the pr fund is only funded from firearm , ammo , archery equipment, and firearm parts.

States choose how they make you apply and what you have to purchase to apply in said state and it has nothing to do with the pr fund

Correct there is no allocation, however it forced states as acondition of receiving funding, to enact laws prohibiting the “diversion” of license fees paid by hunters for any purpose other than administration of their state wildlife agency. Every state did as required. While this established a reliable funding source for state wildlife agencies, it also created an incentive for the agencies to maximize hunting license sales.

 

[SummitsCalling]

The only limiting these days seems to be doing it by creating some financial barrier which I don’t totally agree with, but what are states supposed to do? Do you want tags for average units turn into powerball lotto tickets? That is the trajectory. Until some of the obsession with western hunting dies down or the economy takes a major digger. How do you limit who enters the draw if you make the barrier next to nothing? Points skyrocket and then hunting is even more limited, and you wait several years for marginal units

For western states I think we are already there. A DYI out of state elk hunt is in the $xxxx range now all in, without gear. Depending on the state average units are already a lottery draw after several years of waiting with the bar being raised yearly. Inflation is >20% and not a single slow down in recreation has been seen, that ship has sailed.

The future is grim for those of us with kids if you don't live in specific states. The next generation and the one after that is what matters.

 

[Mikido]

I have 2pp for elk/deer/antelope. Money down the drain or am I the new leader for general in 8-10 years? Another way of asking….does a general tag now cost me an extra $500 when the time comes?

 

[robtattoo]

I believe I'll have 6 or 7 points going into the WY elk draw this coming year. I intend to burn them on a general & spend 3 weeks driving around different units, or until I kill the first bull I see, then I'm done with 'em. I got screwed on my moose points in not going to give them an opportunity to screw me on the elk points. Use 'em up & be done with western hunting. It's not worth the bloody drive, expense & stress anymore.

 

[cuerro viejo]

There is no hunting license sale equation in the pr fund. Might want to read a little into that the pr fund is only funded from firearm , ammo , archery equipment, and firearm parts.

States choose how they make you apply and what you have to purchase to apply in said state and it has nothing to do with the pr fund

Wrong re-read what I wrote. Allocation has Hunting licenses as part of the equation for a state to receive a certain amount of P&R funds.

Part of the allocation equation is States are awarded PR money based off Hunting licenses in reference to population and size. That is why you small populous states make you buy a HL to enter a draw, that you have zero Chance to draw. Of the $56.3 million that comes from WY license revenue, approximately 77% comes from nonresidents. Now how many of those NR never got a tag? How much would WY loose in PR allocation money if they didn’t maximize the Hunting license via requiring them to enter the draw? Those are legitimate questions that NR’s should know when applying.

“In addition to eligible uses and funding sources, Congress may consider amending Pittman- Robertson’s apportionment structure. Currently, states and territories are treated differently under the program; states are apportioned funds based on area, population, and number of hunting licenses (see “State and Territory Apportionment” above), whereas territories are allocated funding based on a set percentage or percentage caps. For the Wildlife Restoration program, states receive a minimum of 0.5% of the program’s total apportionment, Puerto Rico receives not more than 0.5%, and each of the remaining four eligible territories receives not more than 0.17%.78 For both the Basic and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety programs, states receive at least 1% of the total apportionments and territories receive 0.17% of the apportionments.

Page:24 under allocation

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45667.pdf

 

[bdan68]

But Wyoming does not require a person to purchase a hunting license in order to apply in the draw.

 

[Trackerbacker]

But Wyoming does not require a person to purchase a hunting license in order to apply in the draw.

Are license fees paid when applying?

 

[bdan68]

Are license fees paid when applying?

Yes, and then refunded if not drawn.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Yes, and then refunded if not drawn.

Not tags Hunting license. I know I get back all my tag fronts but pretty sure I don’t get back hunting license. I’ll have to look

 

[wapitibob]

Wyoming has a species specific game license and an attached carcass tag. You apply for a license, fees paid up front, if drawn they send the license and the carcass tag is attached.

 

[ClearCreek]

Not tags Hunting license. I know I get back all my tag fronts but pretty sure I don’t get back hunting license. I’ll have to look

When you apply for a big game hunting license in Wyoming and do not draw that license, you are refunded all the money you "sent in" minus an application fee. No amount of the money is retained for a hunting license.

You may be thinking of Idaho??


ClearCreek

 

[Forestryguy]

This whole system has become a scheme. Anymore is only about who can suck as many dollars from the system. Perhaps more funds should be allocated to species or ecosystems that need more input to keep them balanced or from becoming a T&E species.

I will gladly apply to states that return to true draw systems. There is no charge for a license until you successfully draw a tag, then you pay for license/tag/stamps. The states can determine where and how many tags they want to allocate. If OTC is still a thing, I am more than happy with caps.

If 2k for a tag is to be the norm, I am going to find something else with my time and money. The North American model is pretty much dying and will follow Europe.

 

[Archer86]

Wrong re-read what I wrote. Allocation has Hunting licenses as part of the equation for a state to receive a certain amount of P&R funds.

Part of the allocation equation is States are awarded PR money based off Hunting licenses in reference to population and size. That is why you small populous states make you buy a HL to enter a draw, that you have zero Chance to draw. Of the $56.3 million that comes from WY license revenue, approximately 77% comes from nonresidents. Now how many of those NR never got a tag? How much would WY loose in PR allocation money if they didn’t maximize the Hunting license via requiring them to enter the draw? Those are legitimate questions that NR’s should know when applying.

“In addition to eligible uses and funding sources, Congress may consider amending Pittman- Robertson’s apportionment structure. Currently, states and territories are treated differently under the program; states are apportioned funds based on area, population, and number of hunting licenses (see “State and Territory Apportionment” above), whereas territories are allocated funding based on a set percentage or percentage caps. For the Wildlife Restoration program, states receive a minimum of 0.5% of the program’s total apportionment, Puerto Rico receives not more than 0.5%, and each of the remaining four eligible territories receives not more than 0.17%.78 For both the Basic and Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety programs, states receive at least 1% of the total apportionments and territories receive 0.17% of the apportionments.

Page:24 under allocation

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45667.pdf

Yup I mis read what you wrote my bad.

But wyoming doesn't fall under the state that requires a hunting licenses to apply since they don't sell hunting license you apply for tag pay for if not drawn you get refunded and are not counted torwards the formula. Preferance points are not a valid hunting license/ tag so there are not included. States that might be taking advantage of that could be colorado, idaho as you have to buy a license to apply or buy points but wyoming doesn't. And if anything that's formula is good as it it gives states incentive to add more nr tags so they can get more money.

 

[Trackerbacker]

Yes, and then refunded if not drawn.

It'd be interesting then to see what the license number is that PR funds, the application number, or the drawn successfully number