Wyoming Passes 90/10: The Worst Article You’ll Read This Year

[Wildstreak]

None of those piss-poor excuses suggest you should have a right to hunt in Idaho as a non-resident and take away opportunity from residents. Just FYI.

The federal government owns well over half of Idaho. 61 percent to be exact. It isn’t yours. Just FYI.

 

[SummitsCalling]

Kind of hard to hunt wolves and grizzlies with their federal protections. We didn't ask for the wolves and have been trying to get a grizzly hunt, but lawsuits get in the way. I was joking about climate change decimating the moose population.

WY management of grizzlies caused the feds to step in and take over in 1975.

Just a quick search around, it seems the majority of WY residents (49% vs 47% in 2012 polling) agreed with the reintroduction (not as bad as CO, that's another conversation) but also believe they should be hunted[1]. Give an inch and lose a mile. Hunt them to extinction (mismanaging) then complain when the feds step in.

Seems mismanagement is common WY. Maybe the feds should step in to help manage Moose and now Antelope as well since their numbers are down.


[1] https://www.uwyo.edu/uw/news/2012/11/wyomingites-split-on-wolf-reintroduction.html

 

[deadwolf]

We’ve boiled the gist of this thread down to…

“I don’t want any nonresidents to hunt in my state, and if they do they need to pay quadruple what a resident does. But you can’t have more than two tags!”

Also, “non residents are ruining the hunting here and killing too much of our game”

“If you don’t like it then move here like I did!”

This one is my favorite. Especially when all these insights are coming from a guy living in said state for 2-3 years, now an expert on everything.

From the tone of this thread we will eventually legislate non resident hunting opportunities away completely in a tit for tat and just stay home. Work from home, stay at home, have everything delivered to our home. What a nice little comfy bubble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bsnedeker]

We’ve boiled the gist of this thread down to…

“I don’t want any nonresidents to hunt in my state, and if they do they need to pay quadruple what a resident does. But you can’t have more than two tags!”

Also, “non residents are ruining the hunting here and killing too much of our game”

“If you don’t like it then move here like I did!”

This one is my favorite. Especially when all these insights are coming from a guy living in said state for 2-3 years, now an expert on everything.

From the tone of this thread we will eventually legislate non resident hunting opportunities away completely in a tit for tat and just stay home. Work from home, stay at home, have everything delivered to our home. What a nice little comfy bubble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reading comprehension not a strong suite of yours I see!

I never said anyone should move here. In fact, I do not want anyone else to move here! I also never claimed to be an expert at anything.

What I DID say was that I have no sympathy for NR's complaining about the way Western states manage their game and allocate tags. The REASON I don't feel sympathy for you is that I personally sacrificed a LOT to move out here because Western big game hunting and being in the mountains in general is a priority for me. If it isn't a priority for you, and you aren't willing to sacrifice anything and just want to sit in your chair moaning and complaining I have ZERO sympathy for you. It's not my fault that you chose and continue to choose to live in a state that doesn't give you the same opportunities I have. Western states don't owe you a single thing in the universe. The sooner you accept that the better off you'll be.

Now that your strawman has been deconstruced do you have anything useful to add to the discussion, or just more whining and crying?

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

Reading comprehension not a strong suite of yours I see!

I never said anyone should move here. In fact, I do not want anyone else to move here! I also never claimed to be an expert at anything.

What I DID say was that I have no sympathy for NR's complaining about the way Western states manage their game and allocate tags. The REASON I don't feel sympathy for you is that I personally sacrificed a LOT to move out here because Western big game hunting and being in the mountains in general is a priority for me. If it isn't a priority for you, and you aren't willing to sacrifice anything and just want to sit in your chair moaning and complaining I have ZERO sympathy for you. It's not my fault that you chose and continue to choose to live in a state that doesn't give you the same opportunities I have. Western states don't owe you a single thing in the universe. The sooner you accept that the better off you'll be.

Now that your strawman has been deconstruced do you have anything useful to add to the discussion, or just more whining and crying?

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

But yet we should show sympathy to those that just happen to reside close to public lands and be all for providing a free place for you to hunt?
Quick question, would you of still moved if there was zero public land?

The fact is most would have nowhere to hunt without public land which the majority of people in the country overall have a say in it’s future.

Also many residents in states with large amounts of public are not necessarily for them.

 

[Idaho_Potato]

The federal government owns well over half of Idaho. 61 percent to be exact. It isn’t yours. Just FYI.

Idaho Fish and Game STRONGLY disagrees when it comes to wildlife


I'll say it again for those in the back. Idaho gives zero F&$#s about non resident hunters. Citizens of Idaho write the law to allow others to hunt here. It's not a privilege guaranteed to non residents.

 

[Sccritterkiller]

I'm not sure if non-residents would pay quadruple but I guarantee Wyoming would easily sell out at double the price. Special tag pricing has confirmed that for many years. As a non-resident I don't want to pay double, but I would. I think that would slow down point creep as well.

If tags fees were doubled point creep would increase...if you were paying double as a NR why wouldn't keep accumulating points for LE tag instead of going gen...If it's gonna cost you twice as much you would want the best unit possible.

 

[tdhanses]

Idaho Fish and Game STRONGLY disagrees when it comes to wildlife
View attachment 393827

I'll say it again for those in the back. Idaho gives zero F&$#s about non resident hunters. Citizens of Idaho write the law to allow others to hunt here. It's not a privilege guaranteed to non residents.

We do understand how residents in the west clearly feel about what they own.

What’s funny is if public land ever sold off wildlife would still easily be managed by the state, no one is even talking about that right.

 

[bsnedeker]

But yet we should show sympathy to those that just happen to reside close to public lands and be all for providing a free place for you to hunt?
Quick question, would you of still moved if there was zero public land?

The fact is most would have nowhere to hunt without public land which the majority of people in the country overall have a say in it’s future.

Also many residents in states with large amounts of public are not necessarily for them.

Why would I want your sympathy? I'm not whining about anything. My life is friggin' amazing!

And your questions boils down to this: Would you have moved to Montana if Montana was not Montana? That's a silly question.

 

[Lawnboi]

Why would I want your sympathy? I'm not whining about anything. My life is friggin' amazing!

And your questions boils down to this: Would you have moved to Montana if Montana was not Montana? That's a silly question.

To be clear, while you complain about whiners you crying louder than most on here.

Just an observation

 

[Ten Bears]

 

[tdhanses]

Why would I want your sympathy? I'm not whining about anything. My life is friggin' amazing!

And your questions boils down to this: Would you have moved to Montana if Montana was not Montana? That's a silly question.

So Montana is Montana because residents from 49 other states have so far in time supported free lands for people to recreate on? Nothing else?

 

[tdhanses]

Here is my quick overview of this thread, some residents want to vastly reduce NR opportunities which NR aren’t asking for more of then they were originally sold, yet these NR are cry babies and have zero rights and as residents no one really cares? Yet the residents live in states that have public lands making up a significant portion of the states land and no way should these be messed with because that will ruin the ability for peoples to have a place for hobbies? These lands could never be managed privately, they are in far better hands with the government purely because my recreational hobbies will be vastly reduced otherwise? Public lands are what define the states yet they can’t pay to manage them?

It just cracks me up how some can be so mine mine while they utilize others stuff. I get it we are horrible to think selling off public is an answer because it’ll limit peoples ability to play, no way would it be good to shift the funding from these lands to other resources that would actually benefit more and increase economic scale of underutilized lands. Even if the funds received for industry are the same, they’ll be taxed where as rev the government receives isn’t taxed.

How many people in this thread feel we all should spend more then we earn, that we should get so much debt our grandkids will never pay it off all so we can have fun? I bet most here live their lives the complete opposite.

Public lands are a privilege, not a right, and truthfully I never thought I’d be up for seeing them sold but with the mine mine attitude, I think there’s some reasons to look more into this and why do we need federal lands outside of national parks and monuments.

I want everything, the best tags and millions of acres to freely play on is the sentiment I get from some. Then I see the we pay taxes comments here but other then 8 states, the last 42 are propped up by nonresidents taxes, all of the states with the most public land fall into this need for aid.

But yes nonresidents are the self absorbed selfish individuals.

 

[BuzzH]

That's because you can obviously afford that cost. I'd bet for a majority of the Residents in your state that cost increase would be too much to bare. Imagine a family that hunts together and what 4 tags plus the overall cost of the trip would be. You'd possibly price a generation of hunters out of hunting all together in a state (not necessarily ID) who's median income isn't high enough to sustain that kind of increase. How will that help the hunting community and the future of our way of life if we make it too cost prohibitive for the average family to afford?

I'm convinced that Nobody hates hunters more than hunters....

I agree and that is exactly why 90-10 is being pushed.

Most Wyoming residents can only afford to hunt Wyoming. As such they want to continue to enjoy being able to apply for and hopefully draw a sheep tag, a moose tag, or even a high quality pronghorn, deer or elk tag in the state they live in. They see no sense in giving away any more than 10% of those opportunities to a nr, who, no matter what state they live in, have cheap resident opportunities where they live.

Because the fact of the matter is, they aren't going to ever get that chance in another state, for all kinds of reasons. Reasons like being priced out, decades behind in point schemes, not even being allowed to apply for certain species in some states.

Maximizing resident opportunities only make one thing, and that is total sense.

Nothing wrong with any state being willing to share a piece of that with nrs, but in no way should it be expected.

 

[Archer86]

The federal government owns well over half of Idaho. 61 percent to be exact. It isn’t yours. Just FYI.

I am tired of seeing the we pay a majority of federal tax argument its a invalid point. There are probably about 50k Nr hunters there is at least 280k resident hunters in idaho and you think those NR pay more federal taxes then the residents its laughable at best

Fact is there are handful of states that provide a usable amount of public land for the rest of the country to use just because you can't hunt every species when ever you want people are talking about selling off public land fact is if you plan accordingly you can get at least one tag to hunt on public land in the west every year. i think if you live in one of the states that doesn't provide amounts of public land you should pay more for getting access to the land we pay for with our tax dollars and our local taxes that pay for all the roads to get you there. If i travel to the east side of the country what do my tax dollars get me absolutely nothing.

 

[tdhanses]

I am tired of seeing the we pay a majority of federal tax argument its a invalid point. There are probably about 50k Nr hunters there is at least 280k resident hunters in idaho and you think those NR pay more federal taxes then the residents its laughable at best

Fact is there are handful of states that provide a usable amount of public land for the rest of the country to use just because you can't hunt every species when ever you want people are talking about selling off public land fact is if you plan accordingly you can get at least one tag to hunt on public land in the west every year. i think if you live in one of the states that doesn't provide amounts of public land you should pay more for getting access to the land we pay for with our tax dollars and our local taxes that pay for all the roads to get you there. If i travel to the east side of the country what do my tax dollars get me absolutely nothing.

You should look at the numbers, 42 states residents don’t even pay enough into the federal government to cover the aid the federal government gives to make up state budget shortfalls, 1/3rd of WY’s state budget comes from federal aid, not wildlife management but the overall state budget.

Nonresident hunters are a drop in the bucket to what nonresidents provide to 42 states.

 

[Wags]

I agree and that is exactly why 90-10 is being pushed.

Most Wyoming residents can only afford to hunt Wyoming. As such they want to continue to enjoy being able to apply for and hopefully draw a sheep tag, a moose tag, or even a high quality pronghorn, deer or elk tag in the state they live in. They see no sense in giving away any more than 10% of those opportunities to a nr, who, no matter what state they live in, have cheap resident opportunities where they live.

Because the fact of the matter is, they aren't going to ever get that chance in another state, for all kinds of reasons. Reasons like being priced out, decades behind in point schemes, not even being allowed to apply for certain species in some states.

Maximizing resident opportunities only make one thing, and that is total sense.

Nothing wrong with any state being willing to share a piece of that with nrs, but in no way should it be expected.

So you support raising tag costs of WY residents to $500 per Elk tag?

My comment was directed at pricing residents out of hunting their own state...........................

 

[Laramie]

I agree and that is exactly why 90-10 is being pushed.

Most Wyoming residents can only afford to hunt Wyoming. As such they want to continue to enjoy being able to apply for and hopefully draw a sheep tag, a moose tag, or even a high quality pronghorn, deer or elk tag in the state they live in. They see no sense in giving away any more than 10% of those opportunities to a nr, who, no matter what state they live in, have cheap resident opportunities where they live.

Because the fact of the matter is, they aren't going to ever get that chance in another state, for all kinds of reasons. Reasons like being priced out, decades behind in point schemes, not even being allowed to apply for certain species in some states.

Maximizing resident opportunities only make one thing, and that is total sense.

Nothing wrong with any state being willing to share a piece of that with nrs, but in no way should it be expected.

Buzz is spot on in this post. I typically don't agree but the perspective by a few non residents has gotten out of hand. Look at other western states. Wyoming isn't doing anything out of the ordinary with this change.

My only disagreement is how Wyoming has handled the preference point marketing and what will happen to those who have invested. To me that is a separate argument from where this thread has gone.

 

[BuzzH]

You should look at the numbers, 42 states residents don’t even pay enough into the federal government to cover the aid the federal government gives to make up state budget shortfalls, 1/3rd of WY’s state budget comes from federal aid, not wildlife management but the overall state budget.

Nonresident hunters are a drop in the bucket to what nonresidents provide to 42 states.

Go look in the mirror your state is one of those and per resident receive more federal aid than Wyoming residents near 3-1.

If that's your main grievance I'd suggest spending your time cleaning your own house first.

 

[307]

So you support raising tag costs of WY residents to $500 per Elk tag?

My comment was directed at pricing residents out of hunting their own state...........................

So you support Straw Man Fallacies?