Wyoming cuts- sad.

[Jason Snyder]

Joe,

I'm not arguing the opportunity in MT, I'm arguing the hypocrisy and the refusal of residents to pony up to the table. The opportunity for NR is skewed because very few of them can make multiple trips out per year. The resident has a wealth of opportunity at his/her fingers, yet MT has one of the worst price differentials between NR/res prices for elk tags in the nation.

It's a great state to hunt in, but I'm calling a spade a spade here. I think MT will continue to see license sales drop as folks look to more affordable alternatives like Idaho, Colorado, and (gasp) Wyoming.

I'm not in any way convinced that Wyoming's problems are a tag allocation issue.

 

[blb078]

I don't think that raising tag prices or altering tag allocation is a long term fix, it's just a band aid and will be an issue again in a few years. What they need to do is have an external audit done, figure out were they're wasting money, whether it's programs, jobs, supplies, etc. Once they figure that out they can look at fixing those issues. Until they do that it's just going to be the same thing, "we need money, lets see if we can raise big game tag fees", it's just going to keep cycling around. Reducing or eliminating wasteful spending is the first step of getting things back in order financially, no different if you are an individual or company in a cash crunch, you look at your books and figure out were you're wasting money. Now that's going to make some people unhappy because they might lose a program they like or someone might lose a job but that's kind of the harsh reality of being cash strapped. Once they figure out were the money is going then they should look at increasing license fees, and not just big game tags either, all licenses, and it shouldn't be as much of an increase if they've done they due diligence in finding/reducing/eliminating the areas they are wasting money. I don't mind paying a higher tag price I paid over 1k for my NR special general tag this year and points in multiple species, so an extra 25-50 bux isn't shit compared to what I've paid already just for the tag. It's when these agencies automatically jump to raising big game fees when they need money but not looking at the reason why they need money and trying to fix/reduce the problems is were people get mad.

OR

They could try to do what we do here in MO, although it'd probably piss off a lot of residents in WY. MO is the only state that does this(that I know of). Believe it or not we have the, or one of the wealthiest game and fish depts in the country(we call it Dept of Conservation) and the reason for that is 1/8 of 1 cent of all sales tax goes to the Dept of Conservation. 1/8 might not sound like a lot but that tax alone for the MDC(Missouri Dept of Conservation) was over $100 million last year, add in the bazillion deer and turkey tags we sell each year and you see see why the MDC is rolling in $$$$. Now MO has a lot more residents that WY so it wouldn't bring in as much, or the tax could just be on certain things like outdoor items(hunting, fishing, hiking, camping), hotels, restaurants, really anything they want to apply it to, not just statewide like we have in MO, that way it doesn't effect the non hunting/fishing people in WY. A tax like that probably wound't pass a vote but if people knew how much of an impact hunting had on the state's local economies maybe it would. The good thing about the tax is that residents and non residents would be paying it, although residents would be paying it more, but they use the resources more too.

 

[squeekieslayer]

Joe,

I'm not arguing the opportunity in MT, I'm arguing the hypocrisy and the refusal of residents to pony up to the table. The opportunity for NR is skewed because very few of them can make multiple trips out per year. The resident has a wealth of opportunity at his/her fingers, yet MT has one of the worst price differentials between NR/res prices for elk tags in the nation.

It's a great state to hunt in, but I'm calling a spade a spade here. I think MT will continue to see license sales drop as folks look to more affordable alternatives like Idaho, Colorado, and (gasp) Wyoming.

I'm not in any way convinced that Wyoming's problems are a tag allocation issue.

I agree to an extent.... but when you add up conservation, fishing, small game, bird and elk license (all that is in a NR elk combo tag) the Montana one is only 56 dollars more than Wyoming. Granted you may only make one trip, you may never wet a line or shoulder a 12 gage at a bird.... but for what you get in the combo, it doesn't seem that unreasonable compared to Wyoming. Many of the areas in Wyoming have less than half the time to hunt.

It seems that the problem may be the fact that the "combo" tag is including a bunch of stuff people don't want or need.

Joe

 

[squeekieslayer]

question: what western state do you think "has it right?" Fair and good opportunity for res, non res and enough access to make it worth going diy?

Joe

 

[Shrek]

Idaho looks to have the best deal to me.

 

[Nick Muche]

question: what western state do you think "has it right?" Fair and good opportunity for res, non res and enough access to make it worth going diy?

Joe

MT and ID....

 

[HvyBeams]

Why not a 1 or 2 cent lodging tax, and/or a 1 cent increase for a gallon of gas in WY? I know we just raised a gallon a gas 10 cents for highway construction, so a 1 cent tax/gallon of gas would probably not go over well. How about a cable/satellite TV tax, or $5 or $10 extra renewal fee for driver's license, or a cell phone tax. Drivers kill wildlife every year, so they have some responsibility to wildlife. Cell phone towers take away from habitat. How about all ATV's being required to have a license plate with all revenues generated going to the WY G&F, and still requiring a ORV sticker? It might have to be a combination of two or three of the above. I would go for a 1 or 2 cent increase in lodging tax as tourists are usually the ones paying for hotel rooms. Anyone have any other suggestions on how to raise revenue without raising license prices?

Has far as the state that "has it right"... Colorado

 

[Shrek]

Or how about they work with the budget that they have ? Maybe for once they could not grow the bureaucracy and shrink a bit. I bet there are many efficiencies that could be found if they had to. I believe that most of these agencies budget growth should be capped at the core rate of inflation and in implementing this it should be calculated back at least a decade. If in the proceeding decade they have grown faster than population and infation they should be trimmed. They are managing no more land or animals than a decade ago and computers have reduced back office costs and reduced field paperwork costs and time. Where has these savings been passed on to the consumer ? Mostly they have expanded the scope of their operations . More studies , more patrols , more personnel .
This is a philosophical rant and may not completely apply to Wyoming. I have not read their budget line by line nor compared it to historical data.

 

[squeekieslayer]

Or how about they work with the budget that they have ? Maybe for once they could not grow the bureaucracy and shrink a bit. I bet there are many efficiencies that could be found if they had to. I believe that most of these agencies budget growth should be capped at the core rate of inflation and in implementing this it should be calculated back at least a decade. If in the proceeding decade they have grown faster than population and infation they should be trimmed. They are managing no more land or animals than a decade ago and computers have reduced back office costs and reduced field paperwork costs and time. Where has these savings been passed on to the consumer ? Mostly they have expanded the scope of their operations . More studies , more patrols , more personnel .
This is a philosophical rant and may not completely apply to Wyoming. I have not read their budget line by line nor compared it to historical data.

There are a lot of responses like this and I just don't get it..... Yes they can likely trim the fat so to speak and squeeze some money out of it. But facts are facts. States have less money, investing/saving money has little to no yield with these garbage interest rates, and EVERYTHING is more expensive now. From gas to equipment to wages and cost of living. You guys act like they can just crap 4.1 million. Even then they are just back to square one and no better off than they were last year. Drilling in the state has slowed, even on the Jonah. Cost of feed has had to have gone up for the feedlots.... hell last year a ton of hay got up to around $250.

ranchers/farmers/landowners are getting smarter. GF has to compete with guides and outfitters leasing up land that was previously open to public or hunter management. There is too much money in it for the landowner and the GF can't compete.

Personally I don't think Wyoming will ever put into effect a new tax just for the purpose of funding the gf. Turns out people don't like taxes, and while game management is at the top of our list, the majority of people do NOT hunt and would likely not benefit directly from it.

As in any government agency, there is likely a bit of waste, but the plain and simple truth is that for the GF to run like everyone wants it to, they need more money... yet no one wants to pay it.

something has to give

Joe

 

[blb078]

There are a lot of responses like this and I just don't get it..... Yes they can likely trim the fat so to speak and squeeze some money out of it. But facts are facts. States have less money, investing/saving money has little to no yield with these garbage interest rates, and EVERYTHING is more expensive now. From gas to equipment to wages and cost of living. You guys act like they can just crap 4.1 million. Even then they are just back to square one and no better off than they were last year. Drilling in the state has slowed, even on the Jonah. Cost of feed has had to have gone up for the feedlots.... hell last year a ton of hay got up to around $250.

ranchers/farmers/landowners are getting smarter. GF has to compete with guides and outfitters leasing up land that was previously open to public or hunter management. There is too much money in it for the landowner and the GF can't compete.

Personally I don't think Wyoming will ever put into effect a new tax just for the purpose of funding the gf. Turns out people don't like taxes, and while game management is at the top of our list, the majority of people do NOT hunt and would likely not benefit directly from it.

As in any government agency, there is likely a bit of waste, but the plain and simple truth is that for the GF to run like everyone wants it to, they need more money... yet no one wants to pay it.

something has to give

Joe

The reason why you see the responses is because people want to see what the money is being spent on. If they're asking the people for money money then were is it going to go? Things like that. As I've stated I think it needs to be a combination of a small increase in fees, along w/cuts in the agency.

 

[Jason Snyder]

All you have to do is file a FOIA and you can get all of the budgetary information that you want.

 

[Shrek]

Obviously the Wyoming legislature did not feel the tag increases were warranted.

 

[squeekieslayer]

No one is arguing whether that was a good idea or not.... it obviously was not. BUt it doesn't change the fact that they need more money one way or another.

 

[magpie]

question: what western state do you think "has it right?" Fair and good opportunity for res, non res and enough access to make it worth going diy?

Joe

Ummmm WY or MT for sure.....

Idaho looks to have the best deal to me.

ID isn't bad, but there's a reason why so many tags are not being sold out these days like they have been in previous years.....

 

[squeekieslayer]

Ummmm WY or MT for sure.....



ID isn't bad, but there's a reason why so many tags are not being sold out these days like they have been in previous years.....

wolves?

 

[Jason Snyder]

Obviously the Wyoming legislature did not feel the tag increases were warranted.

Or else they saw what happened to sales in MT and ID when they jumped their prices and decided that maybe it wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

 

[Jason Snyder]

wolves?

Or a jump in NR prices coupled with the perception of wolves. I haven't yet seen a mass exodus of ID residents because of a lack of elk hunting.

 

[squeekieslayer]

Like I have said.... it is sad but it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep everyone happy with all the regs. Especially when running at a deficit.

Joe

 

[wapitibob]

If I remember correctly, multiple agencies were required to cut their budgets and all did with the exception of the Game dept. They said they couldn't do it and then went to the legislature for money. The legislature turned them down because they didn't cut their budget. Had they done that, one of the Bills would have been passed.

 

[magpie]

Or else they saw what happened to sales in MT and ID when they jumped their prices and decided that maybe it wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

winner winner chicken dinner!

On second thought wyo is a terrible state. It's all private land. Wilderness law, too many utards, outfitters, wolves, bears, rabbits, squirrels. Its a horrible place! I would focus on Idaho or Colorado