Wyoming cuts- sad.

[Ryan Avery]

Magpie, you never really bring much to Rokslide. You just come on here to bitch and cut others down. You seem like a smart guy. Why not post up something constructive?

 

[jmez]

Good points about seeing the entire budget. There is surely waste involved but without seeing the figures you can't assume the cuts are all wrong. The reality going forward for all public budgets are going to be cuts. People don't seem to mind until the cuts affect them directly, then it becomes a crisis. If they were slashing fishing budgets likely not many on here would care and think it was a good idea. The elk hunters see the pheasant program as wasteful and useless. The pheasant hunters likely think all the money put toward big game is wasteful and useless.

I'm all for eliminating waste but when cuts, especially large ones, are enacted then most everyone is going to suffer. Everyone has to share in the pain, so to speak, and we also need to accept that cuts that affect us are inevitable as well.

I don't mind fee increases and NR should pay more. DIY hunts in the west are still a bargain with tag prices what they are. No hotel rooms, no eating out, no going out on the town. Likely spend less than most do on a weekend pheasant trip to SD where the license only cost $150. The NR wilderness area law in WY is so asinine it doesn't even merit discussion. Changing that would go a long way in increasing NR applications.

 

[magpie]

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.

I never said the wilderness rule did not exclude you. I said you were wrong regarding the limited public land. There is plenty of public land to hunt outside the wilderness areas. I would wager if you totaled up the acres of public land outside the wilderness there is still more then the majority of states. And with the exception of a couple areas inside the wilderness there really isn't that great of hunting in a lot of the wilderness. A lot of that country doesn't support many critters.... at least the ones that taste good.

Point creep happens for the most sought after units. Are those the best units? Not really. There's some great units that take only 1 or 2 points to draw. Point creep? Hilarious. I like how you brought up Colorado. Yeah they don't have ANY point creep hahahahahahaha

But disregard everything I just spoon fed you. GFY.

 

[magpie]

Magpie, you never really bring much to Rokslide. You just come on here to bitch and cut others down. You seem like a smart guy. Why not post up something constructive?

Where did I cut anyone down? Or bitch? I do post up constructive posts, usually in a private matter via a private message.

I'll be the first to help a guy out on a unit I know, but if a guy is going to get on the internet to cry about something that is BS I'm going to give him a little chit. He deserves it.....

 

[magpie]

It will take an act of god to change the BS wilderness law that is in place in Wyoming. Outfitters, Guides, and the whole hunting industry use dollars to promote their agenda's and the results are dismal for wildlife and the average joe hunter.

 

[crumy]

I agree with the other posts about splitting archery and rifle tags. I am a resident and I don't want to see a price increase for res or non-res but I think it is inevitable. Using 2102 draw numbers I did some data analysis (yes I'm a geek) and determined that by doing this and keeping tag prices the same, game and fish would increase income by close to 30%. This assumes that 1/3 of people who appy for rifle would also apply for archery. Archery tag would be a little cheaper than rifle. Pp could be used for either archery or rifle but not both in the same year

i shared this with g and f commissioner. Even got to talk to him about proposal. But basically got told they had been looking at something like that and isn't think it would work. I would be glad to share if anyone wants it

 

[Jason Snyder]

Splitting and reducing your opportunity in the name of money is a dangerous precedent. Living in a state that has done so, I'd advise you to find different ways to offset the monetary difference.

 

[squeekieslayer]

I don't think this is where this was supposed to go....

I completely agree the wilderness thing is garbage, and as you can read I don't want to defend the game and fish. Honestly though... is not hunting wilderness that big of a deal? I hunted wyoming my entire life thus far without ever having permission for private land. I don't feel like there is that much or that good of hunting in the wilderness areas of WYO.

That really shouldn't deter u guys from applying there. It has plenty of problems but this should not be the deciding factor for you.

Joe

 

[squeekieslayer]

I knew crumy would come in here. He had some great ideas last time this was discussed.

I think if there is one thing to take away from this conversation is all of the different, highly passioned ideas people have about hunting. It is probably very difficult to come up with a plan that is fair and everyone agrees with. The cost of completely re doing the system now would be high. There would surely be lawsuits over the amount of money people had invested in the pp system.

Keep in mind they are trying, it is a very difficult job to make everyone happy.

 

[magpie]

Splitting and reducing your opportunity in the name of money is a dangerous precedent. Living in a state that has done so, I'd advise you to find different ways to offset the monetary difference.

Agreed. Also currently I believe WY has a great system to benefit off of the archery hunters, both res and non res. You have to buy the archery stamp so that is already an additional revenue for the fish and game dept.

I wish I could sit here and type the solution to the problems the WGFD is having. But I can't. I think there is greater issues at hand then what has been mentioned. While some great idea's have been mentioned I'm not sure what the solution is. I can't sit here and believe it's as simple as raising tag fees.

It is scary to me that with all the opportunity Wyoming gives to residents and non residents that they are still having budget problems. Wyoming is very liberal with the # of tags to both residents and nonresidents.

Since a lot of us are dreaming here I will tell you my dream for WY. I would like to see them make some trophy units. Currently I know of no area that is actually managed for trophy class animals in WY. I would like to see a select few areas managed for big bucks and bulls and the cost to put in for those double the price of current tags. AND if you kill on the hunt you pay a trophy fee so to speak to discourage people from just shooting an immature animal towards the end of their hunt.

But I'm getting off topic again.....carry on

 

[Jason Snyder]

One thing to keep in mind reference how the money is spent. Oftentimes there are a large number of accounts that are earmarked for certain things. For example, we all know what Pitman-Robertson monies are. They have to be spent on wildlife management and/or hunter ed. Likewise, there are Dingell-Johnson monies that have to be spent on fisheries management. Each of these funds are federal funds that are reimbursed to the states at at 3:1 match in terms of license sales.

So, you can't necessarily axe a percentage of the fisheries budget without some large ripple effects simply because you like elk hunting better. And vice versa. Also, you may find positions like a black footed ferret biologist that is funded via soft money, and even if you eliminate it you didn't save the G&F a single dime. You can't pay for law enforcement services with either PR or DJ monies, that has to come from state funding. Moral of the story here, not everything is as simple as it seems.

Also, I'd say it's a fact of life that a NR hunter wanting to hunt elk in WY is going to fund ancillary programs like pheasant releases. This is smart fiscal management. After all, if you can rent out a room above your garage to pay for stuff in your house that are luxury items, isn't that smart? Again, it's a supply and demand thing. WY offers a supply of elk hunting that is in demand, and as a result is able to pay for things that they might not be able to otherwise. Personally, I think upland bird hunting is a great family activity and I have no problem supporting that.

I too think the wilderness outfitter subsidy is BS, but in reality it's more a principle thing than something that really prevents a NR from finding some good hunting.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Agreed.

I wish I could sit here and type the solution to the problems the WGFD is having. But I can't. I think there is greater issues at hand then what has been mentioned. While some great idea's have been mentioned I'm not sure what the solution is. I can't sit here and believe it's as simple as raising tag fees.

It is scary to me that with all the opportunity Wyoming gives to residents and non residents that they are still having budget problems. Wyoming is very liberal with the # of tags to both residents and nonresidents.

A huge percentage of G&F budgets go to costs that have increased exponentially over the last ten years. Look at how much money is devoted to gas for trucks, boats, ORVs, and planes. You can't survey the resource without gasoline. Tires, fleet maintenance, building maintenance, etc.

In addition to all that, now you have to pay your employees a commensurate wage. Many state wildlife employees can make much more money working for the feds or for private firms. If you don't keep up, you end up like Montana where they have lost game wardens to municipal police departments, the Highway Patrol, and so on. For many years these positions were not adequately compensated, but people kept applying for them and staying in them. Now that they are looking elsewhere the problem has had to be addressed and it's not a cheap fix.

Also, many agencies are being tasked with doing more work with sensitive species, endangered species, etc. How much money have sage grouse cost WY?

 

[Shrek]

There may be plenty of public land available in Wyoming but the wilderness rule is a big not welcome sign to a diy hunter. Perception of the facts is just as important as the reality. When I learned of the wilderness rule and the proposed license increase I was done with Wyoming before I even started. Why would I invest my time and effort into a state that was telling me not to subtlety that they didn't want me to come unless I had money to blow on guides. That is the impression it left me with. Then it looked like the licenses where going through the roof also so I just moved on.
Back to the budget cuts , I'm of the opinion that the department is poorly managed . They are targeting the cuts to have maximum impact on customers instead of minimum impact. It appears that the custs are aimed at preserving the bureaucracy not the core function. I'm a long ways away and have no dog in the fight as I will put my efforts into other states. It's a huge investment to travel and learn an area and a state with a precieved unwelcoming attitude is not precieved by me to be a good deal. As for better preference point systems in other states I don't think they are a good deal period . They are a great deal for the states but for the top species like sheep , goat , and moose they are a terrible deal for hunters as it will take a lifetime to work through the first couple year point holders and the rest will die of old age before they ever get a shot.

 

[Jason Snyder]

There may be plenty of public land available in Wyoming but the wilderness rule is a big not welcome sign to a diy hunter. Perception of the facts is just as important as the reality. When I learned of the wilderness rule and the proposed license increase I was done with Wyoming before I even started. Why would I invest my time and effort into a state that was telling me not to subtlety that they didn't want me to come unless I had money to blow on guides. That is the impression it left me with. Then it looked like the licenses where going through the roof also so I just moved on.
Back to the budget cuts , I'm of the opinion that the department is poorly managed . They are targeting the cuts to have maximum impact instead of minimum impact. I'm a long ways away and have no dog in the fight as I will put my efforts into other states. It's a huge investment to travel and learn an area and a state with a precieved unwelcoming attitude is not precieved by me to be a good deal. As for better preference point systems in other states I don't think they are a good deal period . They are a great deal for the states but for the top species like sheep , goat , and moose they are a terrible deal for hunters as it will take a lifetime to work through the first couple year point holders and the rest will die of old age before they ever get a shot.

Spend your money how you want, but remember that MT has a GUARANTEED 3% price hike every year. For my money, I'd go to WY. The only reason I don't is because I have to drive all the way through MT to get there, so the gas money I burn offsets the cheaper elk tag in WY plus the time lost driving there.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the cuts are targeted for maximum impact? Against who? What do you know about WY G&F that led you to the conclusion that they are poorly managed?

Curious.

 

[Shrek]

The presvation of the bureaucracy come from not really cutting personnel but instead not filling newly created and vacant positions. They are counting on getting their money down the road so they are trying to hold onto people and instead cutting fish stockings and the like. Instead of sizing the manpower to the available budget they are squeezing hours worked and reducing the travel , training ect. Reduce the force and use the money to effectively train and enable the remaining personnel to maximize their effectiveness. Crippling work restrictions do not make for an effective organization. Too many people for the budget means that the personnel will be less effective that a right sized force that can be fully funded and enabled.

 

[crumy]

Maybe I am in the minority here but I happen to think there is an abundance of public land in wy that IS NOT wilderness. Of course I say that from a flat landers view point I am originally from Ohio I went into wilderness last year. It wasn't because hunting was better in my mind, It was because i wanted to hike in and get away from people and only a few will ever go a mile from te truck. But I also agree that I don't see why a guide is needed. Only reason is the outfitters had some good lobbyists.

Also I wasn't saying that by splitting archery and rifle that you only get one tag. I believe if you want both get both. Draw a limited or get a general. Maybe I want to bow hunt 7 and rifle 32. That is how I will apply. Maybe I get lucky.


And pref point system seems a little sucky to me from inside looking at it. I won't go into it because my opinion will derail this thread. We might as well start talking about crossing at corners too. .

But like squeekie said. I am glad to see people discussing it. That means people care



I would say call scott talbot or one of the commissioners but I don't know that it would do any good. I get the impression they are set in their ways

 

[Rent Outdoor Gear]

Lots of good points made on all sides of this discussion - glad to see it staying civil and intelligent.

Jason, in response to your last post, on the surface it does seem that WYGFD is making some cuts that are high profile perhaps to get the public's attention. As soon as their fee increase got shot down, the email barrage from WYGFD started with their sob story - much like the National Park Service did when sequester hit and they started talking about not opening Yellowstone on time. Seems like politically blackmailing the public into siding with getting them more money. This is what I was taking issue with... Are those the right cuts to make? Maybe they are, but seems like the things that generate revenue, like keeping the gates open for paying customers, or maintaining fish stocking and winter feeding programs should take priority - at least in the short term - over things like new trucks, out of state travel, raises, bonuses, etc...

It's certainly a LOT more complex than it seems on the surface. Wyoming will continue to be on my list of places to hunt - they are extremely generous to NR's through their quotas and there is a lot of opportunity. As someone else mentioned, the fact that they are already taking so much NR money makes the budget situation even spookier... I think WY does a pretty dang good job of managing their wildlife - there's some good hunting - even some good trophy hunting for about every species. They don't really have to hyper manage for trophies Magpie because there are some great bucks and bulls in just about every unit. WY will rarely produce bulls like Arizona or Utah due to climate, but there are a lot of units that have 350 potential. Can't say that about other states in the west. They actually seem to be giving enough tags to minimize point creep in the high demand units. You would be pretty much guaranteed any tag in the state with max points this year (7). The exception to that is sheep, moose, goat - points don't work because there aren't enough tags and the point creep outpaces new applicants and there's no catching up. I would like to see half the tags for these species go to point holders and the other half to non point holders. That might incentivise some of us to apply again.

Maybe the gradual inflationary adjustment MT uses is a better program - adjusts for rising costs without having to pass fee hikes to keep up.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Maybe the gradual inflationary adjustment MT uses is a better program - adjusts for rising costs without having to pass fee hikes to keep up.

The ironic thing is that it is only for NR licenses and not for resident licenses. MT is the epitome of resident welfare for hunting.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Darin,

Is it really a sob story, or is it just reality? I'm sure some of the comments were intended to get people's attention. Again, people always ask for leaner governement so long as it doesn't affect them and then they get upset. As I said above, cutting money to your capital maintenance is dangerous water. You end up with a fleet of vehicles that spend more time in the shop than they do on the road, reducing employee effectiveness. Then, when you do fund new ones you don't get as much in salvage value so the replacements are more expensive. Maybe you can get by with less, but you better be sure before you go there.

Shrek,

I thought you had some inside information, but it doesn't appear that you do. I guess you can call it preserving the beauracracy. Training your employees to do more? There are finite hours in the work week, which ultimately means there are a finite amount of services that can be provided. You cut staffing, you lose services pure and simple. Once you cut a position from state government you have greatly reduced your chances of ever getting it back. That is why positions are left vacant instead of being eliminated.

Is it hope for money down the road? Absolutely.

My last point here. There seems to be a lot of questioning about how in the world did this happen. State F&G agencies operate in a very unique way. Many of them operate with periodic license fee increases, WY being one of them. So, they request a fee increase that will give them a budget surplus. They know over time that the operating budget will catch up to the license revenues, and eventually will lead to a budget deficit.

My guess is the last time WY had a license fee increase, their operating costs were not near what they are today. Now, they have to play catch up. It's a weird way to operate for sure, because if you don't get a license fee increase when one is requested, you end up with a situation like WY is facing right now. You end up having go choose among programs as to where you can and should cut, and where you will get the most bang for your buck to cut. Keeping in mind that all of these programs are likely very well received by your constituents.

 

[squeekieslayer]

The ironic thing is that it is only for NR licenses and not for resident licenses. MT is the epitome of resident welfare for hunting.

That said.... how many other states can a NR wait to see if they drew any other states, then buy a tag OTC that will allow a deer and an elk, and they will be able to hunt the entire state except for a few areas, and be able to do it for 3 months with archery and rifle?

My opinion, you get what you pay for.

As far as Wyoming goes, i agree 100%.... its called a reality check. It costs more to do ANYTHING right now, the state has LESS money, and the system they have used for many years to allocate tags is no longer working. I would say that is a perfect storm of problems for the GF. Like I said, even if they found the PERFECT plan that made EVERYONE happy.... the cost to implement it would still be prohibitive.

It is going to take small steps, unfortunately one of those steps is going to be to regain the upper hand on the budget while spending less.... by increasing tag prices and spending less of projects, this is where they are headed. Hopefully at that point they will begin to rethink the entire show.

I am glad I am not the guy in charge of that mess right now hahaha

Joe