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

[deadwolf]

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

@bsnedeker, I don’t recall addressing you or any post you made. But I appreciate your reply which says a lot more about you than it does me.

If you were to read back through all the posts, you’ll encounter one of mine that says something to the effect of “each state has the right to manage their game as they see fit, and the non resident has little to say about it”. Doesn’t mean I have to like it, or can’t be upset about it.

Also, I live in Alaska, so I think I’ll survive if and when Wyoming completely phases out the non resident hunter.

I will quote you now though, and add to my list of statements that embodies some folks in this thread..

“In fact I do not want anybody else to move here!”

Yet right there in your own post you said how much YOU sacrificed to move there. But, now that you’re there, no one else can move there.

Mine, mine, mine.

See, my reading comprehension is pretty good!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

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.

Yup it is, i said 42 others are, and there is 300k acres of public here vs 30 million in WY, plus we pay a state income tax to reduce our overall percentage needed to make up the budget, we all could do better and not rely on 8 states.

 

[BuzzH]

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...........................

I support each state taking care of it's residents first and keeping hunting affordable to their residents should be the priority.

Since nr hunting has ALWAYS been a luxury, I believe that luxury items should demand luxury pricing.

 

[Wildstreak]

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.

I must have missed the part on my federal tax return that asked if I bought a Idaho deee tag. Donald Trump wanted to give all the federal land back to the states. He wanted the individual states to take ownership. Everyone knew then that was a horrible idea because the states couldn’t afford it. When your state takes over the federal property and quits getting federal dollars to support it then we will talk. Until then every single person in the United States that pays federal taxes contributes to and has ownership of that property. Not just the people that buy hunting licenses and tags.

 

[tdhanses]

I support each state taking care of it's residents first and keeping hunting affordable to their residents should be the priority.

Since nr hunting has ALWAYS been a luxury, I believe that luxury items should demand luxury pricing.

I agree NR tags are a luxury as is public land, some are very fortunate to live close to millions of acres they can roam on for a very small cost.

 

[Laramie]

I agree NR tags are a luxury as is public land, some are very fortunate to live close to millions of acres they can roam on for a very small cost.

I do get where you are coming from but do you really believe it? I'm pissed too but there is no going back once they are gone.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

I agree and that is why I have always been against point systems.

In spite of the very obvious, and published number of tags and applicants, there is going to be an expectation of those buying points that they are owed a tag. Even though it's a very unrealistic expectation, that IS the expectation non the less.

That applies to both r and nr hunters. What I find curious, is even though I have over 20 points in some states, I never viewed my point purchases as being ever owed a tag.

Apparently I must be an outlier as I've always viewed it as, at best, a slight advantage and mainly a way for my chances to not get any worse among those applying around me. Meaning where I apply as a nr my fellow nr applicants.

I've always also assumed that over time my nr allocations would more likely than not decrease.

That's pretty well been the case and a realization I've always recognized and accepted playing the nr tag lottery.

 

[tdhanses]

I do get where you are coming from but do you really believe it? I'm pissed too but there is no going back once they are gone.

At heart no but once hunting becomes an every 10 year pursuit for elk, deer and antelope even though elk is my passion and fewer utilize these lands, it does make sense. With the cost of everything going up, we’ll see fewer recreational users traveling and exploring.

If 100 million acres came up for sale all would have an opportunity to buy when previously they wouldn’t, multiple ways to look at it.

Another way to look at it, if public is so important make there be equal coverage in every state, use funds for the sale of lands to expand public opportunities where the majority of people reside. Maybe no more then 20% of any state can the feds hold land in public trusts. This would open up tons of recreational opportunities to residents in every state.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree NR tags are a luxury as is public land, some are very fortunate to live close to millions of acres they can roam on for a very small cost.

You don't pay a cent more for public lands...so you're afforded the same cheap access to 640 million acres as everyone else.

Wyoming, Montana, etc charge you nothing more to use public lands.

 

[tdhanses]

You don't pay a cent more for public lands...so you're afforded the same cheap access to 640 million acres as everyone else.

Wyoming, Montana, etc charge you nothing more to use public lands.

I do to get there though, it would be different if every state had the same percentage of land allocated to public, that would open up opportunities for many more people and I don’t see how you could be against this.

 

[BuzzH]

At heart no but once hunting becomes an every 10 year pursuit for elk, deer and antelope even though elk is my passion and fewer utilize these lands, it does make sense. With the cost of everything going up, we’ll see fewer recreational users traveling and exploring.

If 100 million acres came up for sale all would have an opportunity to buy when previously they wouldn’t, multiple ways to look at it.

Another way to look at it, if public is so important make there be equal coverage in every state, use funds for the sale of lands to expand public opportunities where the majority of people reside. Maybe no more then 20% of any state can the fed hold land in public trusts.

You sound jealous and upset over where you have chosen to live and how your life has turned out.

Should have made better choices or you need to change your situation.

If I sounded as miserable as you seem to be, I'd change things up.

 

[BuzzH]

I do to get there though, it would be different if every state had the same percentage of land allocated to public, that would open up opportunities for many more people.

You chose your zip code...not my problem and no reason to take out your frustrations on those who chose differently.

 

[tdhanses]

You sound jealous and upset over where you have chosen to live and how your life has turned out.

Should have made better choices or you need to change your situation.

If I sounded as miserable as you seem to be, I'd change things up.

Haha, no I’m very lucky and can live where I do and travel to hunt multiple states a year and have not only public land to hunt.

I do think it’s funny now I’m jealous that public land isn’t allocated out fairly just because that would mean a vast reduction of it in WY to open tons to people that live east of you.

 

[tdhanses]

You chose your zip code...not my problem and no reason to take out your frustrations on those who chose differently.

Yup and so did 330 million other voters who in the end decide the fate of public land.

 

[BuzzH]

Haha, no I’m very lucky and can live where I do and travel to hunt multiple states a year and have not only public land to hunt.

I do think it’s funny now I’m jealous that public land isn’t allocated out fairly just because that would mean a vast reduction of it in WY to open tons to people that live east of you.

That's great, then you really have nothing to be complaining about.

I'm in a slightly better boat as I hunt/fish no less than 5 states a year and have great opportunity afforded me via my choice in zip code as well.

Maybe be thankful for what you have instead of worrying someone else may have it better.

You'll sleep better at night.

 

[Archer86]

I must have missed the part on my federal tax return that asked if I bought a Idaho deee tag. Donald Trump wanted to give all the federal land back to the states. He wanted the individual states to take ownership. Everyone knew then that was a horrible idea because the states couldn’t afford it. When your state takes over the federal property and quits getting federal dollars to support it then we will talk. Until then every single person in the United States that pays federal taxes contributes to and has ownership of that property. Not just the people that buy hunting licenses and tags.

Must have missed the entire thread I have never said only hunters have access to public land exactly the opposite everyone can access it you just might not be able to get a tag and I have said that there are more NR and residents that use those lands out of hunting seson You must have not went through the entire thread. I was tired of seeing the NR HUNTERS pay more federal tax then residents of a certain state so they should get so many tags guaranteed or we need to sell off public lands. It's a shame that someone even started pushing that on a diy hunting site that I would bet most of the hunters hunt public land that they want sold.

 

[BuzzH]

Yup and so did 330 million other voters who in the end decide the fate of public land.

I have faith in them seeing the big picture as a vast majority spend time at some point in their life on those 640 million acres they co-own.

Most don't share your views, and that's a good thing.

 

[tdhanses]

That's great, then you really have nothing to be complaining about then.

I'm in a slightly better boat as I hunt/fish no less than 5 states a year and have great opportunity afforded me via my choice in zip code as well.

Maybe be thankful for what you have instead of worrying someone else may have it better.

Oh I’m not thinking of myself, many are less fortunate and don’t get to experience the joys we do, while you feel others are miserable just because they voice opinions that are not in agreement. I don’t need to flaunt i guess and show off.

 

[tdhanses]

I have faith in them seeing the big picture as a vast majority spend time at some point in their life on those 640 million acres they co-own.

Most don't share your views, and that's a good thing.

Really, you don’t think most in the east coast would prefer more public land in their state and not be willing to sell a chunk in yours to fund it?

 

[BuzzH]

Really, you don’t think most in the east coast would prefer more public land in their state and not be willing to sell a chunk in yours to fund it?

Yes, really.

Information age and people are smarter than you give them credit for. Travel has NEVER been as affordable or easy as it is than now.

People from all over are realizing the gift they've been given via their public lands...and physically getting out to enjoy them. It's not the days of horse and buggy and encyclopedia salesmen.

Just a fact.