Wyoming G&F, how de we get a voice as NR's?

[tdhanses]

If you, as a hunter, shooter, and outdoorsman, are not actively recruiting your family and friends into the mix you are walking around blinded to the realities of what is happening.

Many many people are walking away, costs, access, difficulty in getting tags, many many things combined are why we are a shrinking base nationwide. Most people that recreate on public lands do it on established trails, I would say 80% of those that visit public lands never get off a few acres of it.

Hunting will become more like Europe before we know it, maybe not in our lifetime but it’s heading that way fast.

 

[Wyo_hntr]

Hunting will become more like Europe before we know it, maybe not in our lifetime but it’s heading that way fast.

No it won't. You are listening to too many wildlife Pimps that sell the R3 model as if their livelihood depends on it (it does).

Tags are not difficult to get. Expenses are different individually, but yes if you "need" a 30k SxS, custom rifle, etc it's incredibly expensive. Access has never been better, unless something has changed recently that I'm unaware of.

 

[tdhanses]

No it won't. You are listening to too many wildlife Pimps that sell the R3 model as if their livelihood depends on it (it does).

Tags are not difficult to get. Expenses are different individually, but yes if you "need" a 30k SxS, custom rifle, etc it's incredibly expensive. Access has never been better, unless something has changed recently that I'm unaware of.

Your blind though and base it on your own experience in WY. Go to TX and hunt without getting a lease, go east and see if you have the same experience. Remember WY only has around 650k people in the state out of 330 million in the country. Even in KS, NE and IA access has decreased as leases become the norm, in KS even the state leases land so people can have a place to hunt.

Most states have very little public land compared to western states and private owners lease their hunting rights where they used to allow people to hunt, majority of the hunting public does not live in a western state, someday they will be the majority though as people stop but the anti’s will have hunting slowed first, cougars and black bears will be first, just look at CO and the push they are seeing against cougars. WY maybe the last hold out till more Californian’s move there.

 

[Steve O]

All Wyoming residents are trying to do is get that 77% of the funding NR do to 99.9% and get the NR tag allocation to 0.01%.

Can you blame them?

 

[Wyo_hntr]

Your blind though and base it on your own experience in WY. Go to TX and hunt without getting a lease, go east and see if you have the same experience. Remember WY only has around 650k people in the state out of 330 million in the country. Even in KS, NE and IA access has decreased as leases become the norm, in KS even the state leases land so people can have a place to hunt.

Most states have very little public land compared to western states and private owners lease their hunting rights, majority of the hunting public does not live in a western state, someday they will be the majority though as people stop.

Perhaps you should have stated "hunting outside the western states" will become like Europe....

I hunt other states. Hunting is alive and well, which is probably leading to the increase in lease prices. Supply/demand.

 

[tdhanses]

Perhaps you should have stated "hunting outside the western states" will become like Europe....

I hunt other states. Hunting is alive and well, which is probably leading to the increase in lease prices. Supply/demand.

If it’s alive and well why all the changes then?

 

[Wyo_hntr]

If it’s alive and well why all the changes then?

I'm not going to argue with you.

Keep believing the sky is falling, while encouraging land sell offs and unlimited free tags. Maybe you'll save hunting.

 

[Fordguy]

Man this is like flashbacks of the old wyoming threads. Fordguy , tdhanses , and even buckeye rifleman showed up . Pretty civil so far (wonder why?) Lol

It might have something to do with the absence of a certain individual... or not.

 

[MattB]

Leaving it in the state in which it was collected would be based on the population of sportsmen in the state.

The PR taxes are collected based on dollars spent on certain goods, not by how many people buy hunting/fishing licenses.

 

[Squincher]

The PR taxes are collected based on dollars spent on certain goods, not by how many people buy hunting/fishing licenses.

Those certain goods are outdoors goods, so the money is being spent by outdoorsmen. The more outdoorsmen in a state buying outdoors goods, the more money that state would get. Hence, it would be based on the population of sportsmen in the state.

 

[tdhanses]

Those certain goods are outdoors goods, so the money is being spent by outdoorsmen. The more outdoorsmen in a state buying outdoors goods, the more money that state would get. Hence, it would be based on the population of sportsmen in the state.

But then most states with low populations wouldn’t be subsidized by the many, handout nation doesn’t follow that logic.

 

[Squincher]

But then most states with low populations wouldn’t be subsidized by the many, handout nation doesn’t follow that logic.

But they're sure quick to tell you their state manages their wildlife for their residents, aren't they.

 

[MattB]

Those certain goods are outdoors goods, so the money is being spent by outdoorsmen. The more outdoorsmen in a state buying outdoors goods, the more money that state would get. Hence, it would be based on the population of sportsmen in the state.

PR tax is charged on guns, ammo, and archery gear. In my state there are 280K licensed hunters and 3.3 million gun owners, so ~12 gun owners for every licensed hunter. Unless you are defining "outdoorsmen" as everyone who has ever been outdoors, I think you are overlooking the vast majority of people who pay PR tax annually.

 

[Squincher]

PR tax is charged on guns, ammo, and archery gear. In my state there are 280K licensed hunters and 3.3 million gun owners, so ~12 gun owners for every licensed hunter. Unless you are defining "outdoorsmen" as everyone who has ever been outdoors, I think you are overlooking the vast majority of people who pay PR tax annually.

I would consider shooters to be outdoorsmen. But in any event, the more people in a state buying taxed products, the more money would be generated for that state.

 

[Marshfly]

This thread is like a contest to see if we can get through every single logical fallacy known to exist. LOL.

 

[tdhanses]

This thread is like a contest to see if we can get through every single logical fallacy known to exist. LOL.

It’s just being bored.

 

[Kodiak06]

Why do you think that would happen? I've never seen that any federal funds are predicated upon NR hunter opportunity. From what I understand, the bulk of PR funds are allocated based on state land mass as a portion of total US land mass and hunting licenses sold in the state as a % of the national total. The % of WY NR licenses as a % of the total licenses is not that high, so the decrease in PR dollars should likewise not be that substantial.

Based on simple assumptions, it looks like WY would need to increase R tag/license fees ~3.5x to equal NR license/tag fees.

Their not BUT, if non-res can't hunt National Forest why should that state receive aide? The non-res provide 77% of wyomings F&G license revenue so in reality ALL of this talk is useless because WY will not be dumb enough to sacrafice

Why do you think that would happen? I've never seen that any federal funds are predicated upon NR hunter opportunity. From what I understand, the bulk of PR funds are allocated based on state land mass as a portion of total US land mass and hunting licenses sold in the state as a % of the national total. The % of WY NR licenses as a % of the total licenses is not that high, so the decrease in PR dollars should likewise not be that substantial.

Based on simple assumptions, it looks like WY would need to increase R tag/license fees ~3.5x to equal NR license/tag fees.

Correct, that would be an increase of 34 million dollars for Wyoming hunters to bite with their wallets lol. The non-res provide 77% of wyomings F&G license revenue so in reality ALL of this talk is useless because WY will not be dumb enough to sacrifice that guaranteed $34+ million. It would actually be ignorant and if they do it the surrounding states should ban all WY residents from purchasing NR tags, I bet the hunters would support it and I bet a lot of WY hunters would be unhappy. It's pretty funny seeing/hearing other hunters try to fugg over other hunters on here in this thread smh. It really won't affect me either way, I won't play the WY point game but I can hop over there and shoot me a 130+ whitetail any year I please. happy hunting.

 

[Szwampdonkey]

I stopped paying for NR tags and points years ago. I don’t care if there are 100 fools behind me waiting to get raped they won’t be getting my money for a tag. Plenty of hunting in my home state.

 

[MallardSX2]

I've watched buzz fight for non-residents and help them hunt just to get crapped on by other residents and non residents. He's a no nonsense guy and doesn't care about your feelings he cares about facts.

When it comes to conservation I'd take Buzz over 99% of hunters any day!

ok. Lol

 

[Flyjunky]

The only thing about being a NR in WY that chaps my hide is the wilderness rule. Other than that the rest I can accept.

Me too, that rule really sucks. How any state can say I can’t hunt federally designated wilderness is beyond me. Yes, I get the state controls the game therefore the law but I help pay for that land. I’m sure the residents like it though to cut down on competition.