Wyo Task Force - Nonres Comments!

[Ten Bears]

Thanks for posting this. Just finished filling it out.

Keep it coming Non Residents. Don't get BS'd into the sh!t that is being shoveled and being passed off as sugar.

 

[Bull_n_heat]

Against all the weight of psychological inertia that occurs in page 3 of a hunting forum argument, I would like to weigh in to try to shift the issue....

The reason I disagree with the 90-10 legislation is that is focuses too much on how we slice our pie and not at all on how BIG THE PIE ACTUALLY IS. I'm not so cynical that I think the decision makers are actually throwing this scrap out to distract hunters into arguing over this than actually doing something for wildlife, but I do question why we take the bait so often?

I would encourage everyone to weigh in on this topic with the Task Force if you are passionate about it, but I think it's tremendously more important that we encourage them to advocate policies that might be politically unpopular, but ultimately much more supportive of enhanced wildlife numbers!

 

[Fordguy]

Yes. In the course of a single year with multiple elk, muledeer, whitetail deer and antelope in the freezer, it would take a large family indeed to use that much between the end of the season in which the last animal was "harvested" and the start of the season the following year in which more big game animals were harvested. This was in reference to your 12-15 tags.
If we said 2 of the tags were elk, 4 were mule deer, 5 were whitetail deer, and 4 were antelope in an average year and an average meat weight of each species at 180, 50, 40, and 30 lbs, you would have just shy of 900 lbs of meat in the freezer to be consumed in roughly 9 months if you were to finish it by the start of the next big game season. At 100 lbs/month, that's significantly more than the average family of 4. If more than 2 tags were elk, or if both elk tags were bull tags, the number of. Total lbs of meat could be significantly higher. This is just the count for the big game animals. Assuming that most hunting individuals consume chicken, pork, and beef along with game meat, you will be far above the average meat consumption rate of a large family if you are to utilize all of it before its time to add your next 900 lbs. I'm not saying it cant be done, and I haven't said that. The above is based on a single family member hunting. Add more elk into the mix from another family member and you add significantly to the total. We're not subsistence hunting here either.
My step-dad grew up raising beef cattle. He had 7 brothers and sisters in the house along with his parents. Between the 10 of them they went through 2 beef cattle a year. Roughly 900 lbs for ten people, and they gave some to their neighbors too. The average family size in Wyoming (according to the census) is 3.1. You do the math. Possilble? Yes, likely? No. Healthy to eat that much meat? Probably not (usda recommends 3 oz of meat per day, and they include eggs in the meat category).
I stand by what I said, and I didn't accuse anyone of wasting anything, at any point.

 

[BuzzH]

Against all the weight of psychological inertia that occurs in page 3 of a hunting forum argument, I would like to weigh in to try to shift the issue....

The reason I disagree with the 90-10 legislation is that is focuses too much on how we slice our pie and not at all on how BIG THE PIE ACTUALLY IS. I'm not so cynical that I think the decision makers are actually throwing this scrap out to distract hunters into arguing over this than actually doing something for wildlife, but I do question why we take the bait so often?

I would encourage everyone to weigh in on this topic with the Task Force if you are passionate about it, but I think it's tremendously more important that we encourage them to advocate policies that might be politically unpopular, but ultimately much more supportive of enhanced wildlife numbers!

I agree with your premise...I really do.

But, we've thrown good money after bad trying to make a bigger pie.

Pronghorn numbers are down 20% from a decade ago, mule deer numbers down significantly. Sheep tags in 1983 were 400, now down to less than 200...that same year moose permits were over 2,000...now down to less than 400.

The only bright spot is elk.

What do you propose to "enhance wildlife numbers"?

We spend a metric chit ton on mule deer...what do we get? Fewer tags, shorter seasons, etc.

We spend a metric chit ton of money on bighorn sheep...what do we get? Fewer tags.

I'm seeing species specific NGO's and a handful of the leadership making a good living...money flying out the door, and no improvement in our herds.

Not exactly what I would expect for the substantial investment we're making to make a bigger pie...the pie is continuing to shrink in spite of "enhancements".

This shrinking pie is what's driving 90-10, and since Residents do a majority of the heavy lifting, as well as funding, to just maintain what we have...yeah, they deserve 90% of the tags for their effort. That's why I'm supportive of it.

Solution?

 

[kentuckybowman]

I thought most of the money came from non residents, but what do I know.

 

[BuzzH]

I thought most of the money came from non residents, but what do I know.

That's what you get for thinking...

89 million a year budget...43 of that from NR license sales.

That's not most...

 

[Chad E]

I thought most of the money came from non residents, but what do I know.

I think you'll soon realize that it doesn't matter at all what non residents contribute in buzz's eyes. He will laugh at the number as too small. Then tell us how a minimal residents fishing license increase would make up for lost revenue due to lower nonresidents sales(something they haven't done yet). And then after that he will tell you how non resident hunter revenue don't mean crap to small towns because snowmobiling, fishing and general tourism is way bigger dollars. There's always soME figure or explanation to discredit the contribution non residents make. For the record I'm in no way implying that the contribution made by non residents in the form of license dollars should put them on equal footing to residents.

I get it you want 90 10 or 95 5 or 98 2 or whatever but it gets pretty old to see the constant discrediting of anything non resident. Especially in a state with the most asinine wilderness rule imaginable.

The good news is I've hunted wyoming several times and had nothing but great experiences with residents, small businesses and other hunters while in wyoming. It's litterally my favorite places on earth to hunt and I will continue to be thankful to have a tag there when i do, under whatever allocation system we end up with. The venom for nonresidents exists way more on the internet than it does when your there.

 

[wind gypsy]

That's what you get for thinking...

89 million a year budget...43 of that from NR license sales.

That's not most...

How much from PR and DJ funds?

 

[BuzzH]

How much from PR and DJ funds?

Its on the GF website.

 

[wind gypsy]

Its on the GF website.

You’re right, nice breakout they provide. With the various grants and federal funds, it seems like a fair assumption that over half of the $88 mil comes from non residents.

 

[BuzzH]

How much from PR and DJ funds?

Its on the GF website.

View attachment 304501

You’re right, nice breakout they provide. With the various grants and federal funds, it seems like a fair assumption that over half of the $88 mil comes from non residents.

No, over half does not come from non residents.

 

[Ten Bears]

For the younger members on here please pass this on to any socials you might have. If you do not want be shut out from some amazing experiences later on in life speak up. Take the 5 minute out. I promise when you get to my age you’ll be happy you did if you get to experience these tags and places.

 

[wind gypsy]

I don’t begrudge any WY resident for wanting 90/10. It’s reasonable to want the deal others get and I question anyone who claims there aren’t significant quality of life sacrifices that accompany living in WY. AK is about the only state I think really competes in that regard for most people.

It does suck for NR to have very notable loss of opportunity so R can have very slight uptick in opportunity but I could argue that one both ways. I really wonder what is going to be conceded to WYOGA to get residents a little better draw odds. @BuzzH youve been quick to point out that Sy G is on board with 90/10 for the big 5 but I haven’t seen any mention of what compromise he thinks he’s getting for that concession.

 

[RyanT26]

43,593,085 from nonresidents
9,599,458 from residents

19.4 million from federal aid such as Pittman/ Robinson and Dingel/Johnson
2.7 million in interest and 3.7 from other

Yeah I don’t know if those numbers help you out buzz. Kind of makes it look like Wyoming resident hunters pay Jack shit in the grand scheme of things.

I will say Wyoming puts out great information, From budget to draw odds and other stats Wyoming game and fish really does a job.

 

[BuzzH]

I don’t begrudge any WY resident for wanting 90/10. It’s reasonable to want the deal others get and I question anyone who claims there aren’t significant quality of life sacrifices that accompany living in WY. AK is about the only state I think really competes in that regard for most people.

It does suck for NR to have very notable loss of opportunity so R can have very slight uptick in opportunity but I could argue that one both ways. I really wonder what is going to be being conceded to WYOGA to get residents a little better draw odds. @BuzzH youve been quick to point out that Sy G is on board with 90/10 for the big 5 but I haven’t seen any mention of what compromise he thinks he’s getting for that concession.

If WOGA tries to play that game...they're going to lose, and lose big.

Sy is upset because he realizes his kids and grandkids are screwed under current R/NR allocations...he also realizes that making a bigger pie isn't working, at all.

The only way to see that his RESIDENT kids/grandkids get a chance at big-5 opportunities is 90-10.

If WOGA thinks the residents of WY are going to concede outfitter set asides or transferable landowner tags for a 90-10 allocation for any species...they need to do some better ciphering.

 

[BuzzH]

43,593,085 from nonresidents
9,599,458 from residents

19.4 million from federal aid such as Pittman/ Robinson and Dingel/Johnson
2.7 million in interest and 3.7 from other

Yeah I don’t know if those numbers help you out buzz. Kind of makes it look like Wyoming resident hunters pay Jack shit in the grand scheme of things.

I will say Wyoming puts out great information, From budget to draw odds and other stats Wyoming game and fish really does a job.

Educate yourself on how PR/DJ funds are allocated...get back to me when you do.

 

[Steve O]

Buzz your math is pathetic.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz your math is pathetic.

I can calculate 90-10 pretty easy...and that's the math that matters in this thread.

 

[RyanT26]

So non-residents and federal aid make up
62,993,085 of Wyoming’s $86 million budget

Most of the PR and DJ Money probably also comes from non-residents

Educate yourself on how PR/DJ funds are allocated...get back to me when you do.

I am familiar. Just stop using fuzzy math.

 

[BuzzH]

So non-residents and federal aid make up
62,993,085 of Wyoming’s $86 million budget

Most of the PR and DJ Money probably also comes from non-residents


I am familiar. Just stop using fuzzy math.

Then you should know better than to use fuzzy math...