Wyoming cuts- sad.

[robby denning]

CHEYENNE - The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) is looking for feedback from the public regarding budget cuts the department will be implementing in coming years.

Specifically in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 which is now underway, the WGFD will be reducing expenditures by 4.6 million dollars in areas of habitat improvement, acquisition of lands for hunting and fishing access and habitat protection,fish stocking, WGFD publications, and education programs.

WGFD will continue to work with the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission to seek fiscal efficiencies in programs such as bird farms, fish hatcheries, elk feedgrounds, Wyoming Wildlife magazine and conduct an evaluation of department-provided housing such as game warden stations and fish hatchery stations.

WGFD is welcoming comments on these cuts and would like to know individual perceptions on how these reductions will affect hunters and anglers and those who participate in outdoor activities. Comments can be made through the WGFD website wgfd.wyo.gov. A listing of current and proposed budget cuts is on the WGFD website.

Please click here to review the budget cuts for FY14. http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wgfd-1001371.aspx

Comment here

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD_WebSurvey/SurveySignup.aspx

 

[Coyote Commander]

Where's all their money going? Are they loosing revenue or re-allocating funds?

 

[blb078]

Where's all their money going? Are they loosing revenue or re-allocating funds?

I don't know that they are losing money now(not sure on that) but I do remember seeing how they need to raise X amount in the coming years.

 

[rodney482]

Sequester

 

[Rent Outdoor Gear]

Funny you posted on this Robby, because I was here to do the same... However, what I really find SAD is that they can't find a better place to cut $4.5 million out of a $71 million dollar budget. I'm getting really sick of getting the weekly sob story from WGFD because they couldn't pass their ridiculous license fee increase onto nonresidents. What did it cost them to produce that commercial and run their woe is me campaign?? It looks as if they're purposely cutting programs that will affect sportsmen in order to raise public concern and change public opinion about how necessary a fee increase is. I'd like to see them itemize the entire budget and show us where all the money comes and goes before asking for our comments when they start cutting stocking and winter feeding programs that will surely irk sportsmen and potentially reduce license sales through reduced opportunity.

Granted, it costs money, and a lot of it to manage wildlife in a state as large as Wyoming, but I'm getting really tired of government agencies and their propensity to just continue writing bigger checks and throwing money at stuff (our money) rather than focusing on getting more efficient and cutting excess fat out of the budget.

Stepping off soap box now...

DC

 

[squeekieslayer]

Funny.... I remember a few threads from non-residents whining about increasing prices on tags. In fact, they complained so much that they did not pass it this session. At the time all I remember thinking is "wow, these nr are sure going to think its expensive to hunt in Wyoming when they need a guide because the wilderness areas are their best bet for open land."

Can't have it both ways. Unfortunately I DO NOT THINK THAT RAISING PRICES FOR NR WAS THE WAY TO DO IT, but I think its easy to see cause and effect. Wyoming needs to redo their pricing and allocation of licenses to make up the budget, but I get a kick out of people throwing a fit over higher prices... residentz and nonresidents alike.

Pay to play.... everything else is getting more expensive, why would we think hunting shouldn't?

Joe

 

[jags]

funny you posted on this robby, because i was here to do the same... However, what i really find sad is that they can't find a better place to cut $4.5 million out of a $71 million dollar budget. I'm getting really sick of getting the weekly sob story from wgfd because they couldn't pass their ridiculous license fee increase onto nonresidents. What did it cost them to produce that commercial and run their woe is me campaign?? It looks as if they're purposely cutting programs that will affect sportsmen in order to raise public concern and change public opinion about how necessary a fee increase is. I'd like to see them itemize the entire budget and show us where all the money comes and goes before asking for our comments when they start cutting stocking and winter feeding programs that will surely irk sportsmen and potentially reduce license sales through reduced opportunity.

Granted, it costs money, and a lot of it to manage wildlife in a state as large as wyoming, but i'm getting really tired of government agencies and their propensity to just continue writing bigger checks and throwing money at stuff (our money) rather than focusing on getting more efficient and cutting excess fat out of the budget.

Stepping off soap box now...

Dc

+1 dc

 

[robby denning]

Coop, I'd like to plant your soapbox right on the front steps of G&F in Cheyenne! Well said.

 

[blb078]

I agree w/Coop on this.

Funny.... I remember a few threads from non-residents whining about increasing prices on tags. In fact, they complained so much that they did not pass it this session. At the time all I remember thinking is "wow, these nr are sure going to think its expensive to hunt in Wyoming when they need a guide because the wilderness areas are their best bet for open land."

Can't have it both ways. Unfortunately I DO NOT THINK THAT RAISING PRICES FOR NR WAS THE WAY TO DO IT, but I think its easy to see cause and effect. Wyoming needs to redo their pricing and allocation of licenses to make up the budget, but I get a kick out of people throwing a fit over higher prices... residentz and nonresidents alike.

Pay to play.... everything else is getting more expensive, why would we think hunting shouldn't?

Joe

The problem with this is that NR are being asked to help fund things that NRs don't use. I was on a another site a few months back debating this very thing. After some research I found out that WY releases pheasants at a cost of $23 per bird, but only charges $14 for a license. They spend $4 million a year on trout and salmon. I think the NR have a legit complaint when it comes to tag fee increases. A NR will typically use WY lands for 1 maybe 2 weeks a year. While a R will get much more use out of the lands and game activities but they still want the NR to pay for it. I don't know how many NR go to WY for only pheasant hunting or fishing for salmon/trout, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's not very many. If the two above programs were eliminated then I'd be willing to be not one NR would would complain about it, but the R's want the programs so the NR have to fund or help fund it in the form of higher fees. In the end I think they just need to go through the programs, figure out what each is costing and look at how often they're being used then start getting rid of the things that aren't being used that often. Adding a super tag raffle like MT and AZ do wouldn't hurt also.

 

[Shrek]

Sounds like Wyoming f &g is throwing a tantrum. Didn't get their way so they screaming and sticking it to the consumers they serve instead of carefully targeted cuts to minimize the impact. They need to fire the leadership pronto and find some management that remembers who they serve. Without careful legislative oversight most government bureaucracies loose site of their real purpose and become focused on self perpetuation and not the core function. That goes for any large bureaucracy. Government or corporate. Legislative or board oversight demanding performance not self perpetuation.

 

[squeekieslayer]

I agree w/Coop on this.




The problem with this is that NR are being asked to help fund things that NRs don't use. I was on a another site a few months back debating this very thing. After some research I found out that WY releases pheasants at a cost of $23 per bird, but only charges $14 for a license. They spend $4 million a year on trout and salmon. I think the NR have a legit complaint when it comes to tag fee increases. A NR will typically use WY lands for 1 maybe 2 weeks a year. While a R will get much more use out of the lands and game activities but they still want the NR to pay for it. I don't know how many NR go to WY for only pheasant hunting or fishing for salmon/trout, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's not very many. If there two above programs were eliminated then I'd be willing to be not one NR would would complain about it, but the R's want the programs so the NR have to fund or help fund it in the form of higher fees. In the end I think they just need to go through the programs, figure out what each is costing and look at how often they're being used then start getting rid of the things that aren't being used that often. Adding a super tag raffle like MT and AZ do wouldn't hurt also.

Look, I agree 100%, the wygf realized they had a big problem, and hastily decided to raise NR prices. I understand why they did it.... But I don't think that it was the right way to go about it. We had this debate and I felt like the crowd came up with some great solutions.

My point was simply this.... everyone, res and non-res a like needs to be willing to pay more for tags... PERIOD. It is going to happen, and it probably has to to be able to keep the tradition alive at all.

I do not feel that the entire burden should be placed on the NR, but the fact is this, NR tags are HUGE generators of money. Part of the problem is that the overall economy and the idiotic fed have reduced interest rates to nearly zero. While i dont know the exact numbers, I guarantee that the WYGF used to make a TON of money off of interest on all of the NR applicants for just the few months they hold the money before they send the refund checks.... not 4.1 million, but a portion of it. A flat % increase will always hit nonresidents harder than residents. Up here we gouged our NR license combos for non-residents..... The fact is, people buy them, no matter how much the cost. I feel like the PP system in WYO has people feeling like they are entitled to not have the prices raised simply because they have X number of points and it isnt "fair" to change the game.

Honestly, I think wyoming's entire system is a joke. After living there for 29 years of my life, moving away and looking at it from a different angle has changes my mind on a few things.

1) In limited quota areas, they should split the rifle and archery tags. As it stands if you draw an area you have the tag for archery and rifle. Thus if there are 25 tags... there are likely 5 people that archery hunt it (even though it is lower impact on the animals and land) and 25 rifle hunt it... for a total of 25 opportunities. The fact is that archery hunters kill an extremely small % of the quota in any area. If they were to split the tags archery and rifle, they would be able to allow 2X as many people the opportunity to hunt a given area, with only slightly more impact on land and harvest quota. this would cause more people to apply, more people to draw (which is way more income than sending out refrunds) and 2X as many people buying gas/groceries/accommodations etc. The archery hunters that try to draw tags only to archery hunt will be pissed.... but something has to give.

2) dont make every single Limited tag ONLY good for that area, MT allows you to draw a tag in one area, but still hunt general areas. In my opinion way way more residents would put in for tags if this was the case, thus more application fees and more money.

3) add a muzzleloader tag to some areas, again, not a very high success rate so the harvest quota is managed, but still more opportunities to entice applicants as well as more hunters in the state.

4) bag the stupid PP system. Yes I know, you have a bunch of points and think this idea is garbage but lets face facts.... most 12 year old that put in for sheep or moose this year, will likley not draw till they are 60 years old due to point creep. I love the idea of being "guaranteed" a tag at some point.... but the long shot odds are keeping tons and tons of people from even applying.

I know that these are easy armchair fixes and it is most likely not as easy as it sounds, but I feel it would be a start. It is truly a shame... I know of one hunter management area where i grew up with some absolute HOGS that produced tons of big deer and hunting access to the publc that is closed this year because the wygf could not out bid the outfitters.

sad day. I am not picking on the NR, i am an NR in wyoming now.... with a shit pile of moose and sheep points, but I truly think that as a hunting commuinity we have to be willing to give. We want premier access with very very little pressure.... but we want to pay the lowest price possible for that tag. Low numbers of cheap tags... means low income and with the economy taking a dump, even the oil and gas cant prop up the GF.

It sucks, but we all have to pay.

Joe

 

[Jason Snyder]

Some of you guys seem pretty quick to jump to conclusions here, no? Look again, they are taking almost a million bucks out of personnel. That's a big cut. Also, vehicles and gas are a huge expense for wildlife agencies. Look at the price of gas, tires, and overall fleet maintenance. Cutting back on your capital maintenance is a risky proposition too, because you end up robbing Peter to pay Paul down the road.

Everyone wants agencies to be leaner, but yet they never have any suggestions on how to do it. And then, they complain when their program is cut. Budget cuts are ugly and no one likes going through them.

I for one thought the NR license increase was a sure thing. I was glad (selfishly for myself) that it didn't pass, but anyone that couldn't see the writing on the wall had their heads in the sand. As usual though, I didn't see any residents volunteering to foot the bill for the difference.

 

[orionthehunter1]

When was the last time resident licenses have been increased in Wyoming?

 

[HOT ROD]

Well said coop and blb078. Obama politics in play here????

 

[Shrek]

I know that when I looked at Wyoming as a place to hunt I passed. Preference point system is a bad deal unless you got in on the first year. Limited public land access with the wilderness rule . Those two alone made me look elsewhere. Website is a pia to navigate. I couldn't make heads or tails of it so I'm sure many others couldn't either. Then them announcing the free proposal and I would have to be crazy to play in their sand box. Montana and Idaho seemed to be much better deals and Colorado has the best website by far. Very easy to navigate and welcoming. They have the lowest value imo with a bunch of short seasons so they can sell more tags but they make more money that way and manage the numbers in the field better. Wyoming comes off as not friendly to NR but want them to pay through the nose. Kick the guides off the no wilderness rule tit , fix up the website , and kill the point system and go back to a strait draw would help. Then some more modest price increases for nonresidents and a little more from the residents. And $23 pheasants for a $14 license ? Really ? Stupid is as stupid does. They need to clean house at the top for programs like that and the unrealistic price proposals. Wyoming F&G's biggest shortfall is leadership.

 

[realunlucky]

Wonder how much sfw spent lobbying to block the fee hikes? To much political interference. Their first responsibility should be to the wildlife, then sportsman of wyoming, and finally to the nonresident. I don't agree with their push back tactics but it's politics

 

[Rent Outdoor Gear]

Some really good points Squeaks made... WY could raise more funds by separating seasons for archery, rifle, muzz. Archery success is so much lower they could put a lot more hunters afield with less impact on the resource while generating more income.

They really should ditch PP for trophy species - Like many, I quit applying in WY because I was too far behind and that's a lot of money lost for WY. I do like the PP for other species. The top levels are clearing off for deer, elk, antelope now so you can see that if you want to hunt the best units it's going to take you about 6 - 8 years. Meanwhile there are still decent hunts that can be drawn every year for each of those species. Bonus points never work long-term for Sheep, goat and moose. Kids especially are unfairly discriminated against.

Bonus points do make WY a TON of extra money - which is kind of a joke due to the crazy cost we pay for this "priveledge", but they could... maybe should, let residents in on this racket too and collect a lot more revenue.

Open the wilderness to nonresidents - limit the tags or charge "special prices" if you want to protect outfitters, but those are federal lands and should be open to residents and nonresidents alike.

I would probably support a flat increase across all sportsmen or even a 2:1 NR to resident increase a lot more than a just huge NR increase. WY is a great state to hunt! I would like to see them work from both angles. Increase efficiency, cut costs, reduce waste, eliminate unnecessary programs, AND generate a little more revenue across the board to make ends meet.

Assuming there are 100,000 hunters/fisherman means would need another $46 from each of us... A $71 million annual budget equates to $710 for every sportsman in the state... Really... 71,000,000.00!!! I'm sure it can be accounted for, but man... there's gotta be some serious wasted money in there somewhere.

Their first priority should be to wildlife... but it's time for a reality check on balancing the budget. If they didn't tell anybody and never spent a dime in 2014 I doubt anyone would see a difference in big game populations. I supect fisheries would be the big loser - if the fisheries are not sustainable (both in terms of the resource and profitability) then start limiting fishing and charging appropriate fees to cover the costs for raising and stocking fish. Sure seems like big game hunters are bearing more than our share of the financial burden throughout the west - WY is certainly not the exception in that regard...

If they want input from sportsmen on where cuts should occur, then show us the whole budget with every program cost, expense, and salary and ask us where the cuts would have the least impact. Sure would be a refreshing approach, but it won't happen. They'll continue to play the sob story until they get their increase.

Ok, really stepping off the soap-box this time for good. No offense to WY residents, outfitters, WYGFD, or government employees intended. Could rant like this about nearly every state in the west - but at least the other ones aren't emailing me once a week whining about having to watch their wallet - Welcome to real life WY!

 

[wapitibob]

They voted down resident increases just like they did the NR increases.
WY is the best bang for your buck of any western state, by far. I can shoot 6 Antelope, 6 Mule Deer, and 3 Elk, and not use a single PP to do it.

 

[magpie]

I know that when I looked at Wyoming as a place to hunt I passed. Preference point system is a bad deal unless you got in on the first year..

Wrong.

Limited public land access with the wilderness rule ...

Wrong again. Wayyyyy wrong.

Website is a pia to navigate

Really? I've found it's one of the easier ones to decipher. But I'm beginning to get the feeling you give up easy....

 

[Shrek]

Magpie , so the wilderness rule does not exclude me from using thousands of acres of public land unless I use a guide ? There is not point creep in Wyoming ? The last is my experience of the website is last year when I needed to decide where I wanted to go. It's only my opinion but I had no trouble with Colorado , Montana , or Idaho. I haven't been back since so it may have been upgraded but it was confusing when I was there. As for give up easy . GFY.