Wyoming proposal to slash Non-resident hunters

[Billinsd]

So if 90/10 is good then why isnt 100/0 the gold standard?

That's a bridge too far. Probably will be 91/9, 92/8 very slowly if at all.

 

[Rob5589]

I still want to know why NR get any allocation at all. It's been established on here that the state doesn't need the money, it doesn't need the economic impact NR hunting imparts on the economy. And that all wildlife belongs to the state. So why shouldn't the residents of the state should fully benefit from it.
If 90/10 is good why not go 100/0?
In fact why don't all western states go 100/0?

I am sure it's out of the goodness of their hearts and resident sportman in an abundance of goodwill lobby for it. If the fine displays of comradery we seen here are any indication that must be the answer.

So if 90/10 is good then why isnt 100/0 the gold standard?

I'm picking up what your laying down. Some NR may assume the money isn't needed from NR for F&G depts but, of course they would be wrong. That money is vital to their budgets. Eventually though it may come down to residents only. The resource is limited and states will eventually cave into residents wanting to receive multiple tags vs NR receiving even one tag.

Unity, fellowship, fellow hunter, etc. are great tag lines but, we all know it isn't true. Everyone has their own agenda. This thread points that out, glaringly so.

 

[tdhanses]

It sure seems like We are super good at bitching and complaining to and at each other. And tearing each other apart... instead of coming together and standing together against the anti’s

Quick question, if non residents are reduced to barely being able to hunt or even not at some point why would we care about the antis?

WY has a motto that I find the residents really don’t follow.

 

[Trial153]

States still need the money that non residents bring but if you can make the same off 100 tags why give out 1000? Most government entities aren't allowed a surplus so you basically try to break even every year.

For those that think or say this is all about the money and that more tags should go to NR because they pay more. The same argument can be made for governor tags. Why the hell does a state sell you a tag for 1000 when they can auction it for 15000 plus?

States can make these choices and if that is what the residents of that state want, then that is what the state should do. At which point, if the resident tags must be increased in cost, then that is what the residents voted for and that is the consequences of their choice.

Agree.
And it should be a watershed moment for NR hunters. They will be shut out wherever and whenever possible as long as agency's are able to continue to garner sufficient revenue with as little NR opportunity as possible.

Seems to me that NR should be supporting any free market infusion can into this system. because quite frankly that's going going be our only hope for opportunities.

 

[307]

I've never been opposed to NR hunters but this thread might be changing my mind.

 

[Rob5589]

States still need the money that non residents bring but if you can make the same off 100 tags why give out 1000? Most government entities aren't allowed a surplus so you basically try to break even every year.

For those that think or say this is all about the money and that more tags should go to NR because they pay more. The same argument can be made for governor tags. Why the hell does a state sell you a tag for 1000 when they can auction it for 15000 plus?

States can make these choices and if that is what the residents of that state want, then that is what the state should do. At which point, if the resident tags must be increased in cost, then that is what the residents voted for and that is the consequences of their choice.

And the fact is, people will still pay it. Eventually the fees will hit a point where people stop buying tags in significant numbers. It just hasn't happened yet.

 

[npm352]

Been thinking about this today.

First thought, on Federal property - we are all residents regardless of our mailing address as long as it is one of the 50 states that make up this country.

I am good with the states setting the rules for tags and access to state or private land.

I have as much skin in the game on Federal property as the guy that lives next door to it and should have as much equal chance to hunt it.

By my count about 7 western states are being talked about here. That is 14% of the 50 states.

Those 14% of states want to limit the rest of us to 10% access to property we equally own.

On Federal property - there should only be one license, one cost, one quota, one draw. The state can set the tag limit to manage the widlife, that is their job. They can set the price, but only one price. Everyone that wants to play- pays the same for the same chance to play.

As some have pointed out, the state "owns" the game. 50 States own the Federal property. About 14% of the states enjoy the majority of the Federal property. Tell me why the the 86% of the rest of us shouldn't Post No Hunting signs.

I wish it was different, but it is not going anywhere. Federal law allows for states to financially discriminate against other states in only two ways: college tuition and hunting/fishing licenses.

That will be all but impossible to change.

 

[Steve O]

I've never been opposed to NR hunters but this thread might be changing my mind.

I’d like to state that as Buzz does not speak for all residents, Trail153 does not speak for all of us non residents. Both make good points but do so in the most alienating way. Maybe they could get together and arm wrestle for the award...

 

[CorbLand]

And the fact is, people will still pay it. Eventually the fees will hit a point where people stop buying tags in significant numbers. It just hasn't happened yet.

Like I said. If the goal is to make XXX in sales and I can do that off 100 why do it off 1000 for the same outcome.

The populations of these states are increasing meaning there is more demand for resident tags. States have a duty to their citizens. This is going to continue to happen more and more. The supply is fixed, demand is infinite.

For those that think the Federal Government should have say in this. Think about this. The Federal Government cant even guarantee/manage your rights given to you from the start. You think that they will do a better job at managing wildlife? You think that support for hunting is going to increase and its going to get better when all 320 million have a say? Look at all the stupid anti hunting/trapping bills that get introduced yearly in states. Now garner the support of millions of people all across the country and they now have a say in them passing. The Endangered Species Act was an attempt at the Federal Government managing wildlife. That's gone great.

 

[Trial153]

Yeah, we should all tow the line right up till the point that the small rug is pulled out from us. Brush ourselves off and thank them for taking it.
NR hunters are in for a rude awaking the next few decades when they come to realization that some of the very policies they supported and financed led to the demise of their already limited opportunity.

 

[CorbLand]

Maybe this is great opportunity for someone to start an organization to advocate for NR. We have them for everything else, why not this?

Like I have said in the past. We are all non residents in 49 states. This affects everyone that wants to hunt as a NR in Wyoming. I dont like it when states limit NR and charge them more. My sentiments echo Newbergs. States give NR the shaft then beg for NR support when it starts to affect them. There are plenty of states that shaft NR hunters that I choose not to spend my money in because of this. I am all for opportunity and will advocate for it.

What I am not going to do is advocate to break down a system that works and is proven it works. State governments are inefficient and bad a managing anything. Federal governments are worse. Advocating for the Federal Government to have any say is no different than you tying the same noose that residents are by advocating to limit NR.

 

[BBob]

The populations of these states are increasing meaning there is more demand for resident tags.

And there you have it. If WYO goes the way AZ and NM went long ago the 90/10 at some point won't really matter. You can hardly draw AZ, NM non-res quota or no quota. It worked for awhile but it didn't last. If we totally threw out non-res here it would still be hard to draw so there is no point to doing that. The resource is too limited and somewhere along the line won't be able support the demand regardless of res, non-res allocations.

 

[Fatcamp]

I've never been opposed to NR hunters but this thread might be changing my mind.

Likewise, this thread is making me wonder if the decision to relocate to Wyoming is a wise one.

 

[Billinsd]

State governments are inefficient and bad a managing anything. Federal governments are worse.

Absolutely, this is the case, except in rare circumstances.

 

[Slugz]

Can you give a quick synopsis of the differences?

Sorry but no sir. My glass is always half full and my chi on the positive side. I wanna keep it that way.

 

[CorbLand]

Sorry but no sir. My glass is always half full and my chi on the positive side. I wanna keep it that way.

Provide a link to the thread you are referring to at Eastmans? I would be interested to see the difference.

 

[BuzzH]

I’d like to state that as Buzz does not speak for all residents, Trail153 does not speak for all of us non residents. Both make good points but do so in the most alienating way. Maybe they could get together and arm wrestle for the award...

What? No cage match?

 

[BuzzH]

I still want to know why NR get any allocation at all. It's been established on here that the state doesn't need the money, it doesn't need the economic impact NR hunting imparts on the economy. And that all wildlife belongs to the state. So why shouldn't the residents of the state should fully benefit from it.
If 90/10 is good why not go 100/0?
In fact why don't all western states go 100/0?

I am sure it's out of the goodness of their hearts and resident sportman in an abundance of goodwill lobby for it. If the fine displays of comradery we seen here are any indication that must be the answer.

So if 90/10 is good then why isnt 100/0 the gold standard?

Honestly for some species they should get all the allocation for moose, sheep, goat, bison, grizzly bears (eventually).

If you want to spread some goodwill then why don't you front and pay some NR tag fee's for Wyoming/Montana/Idaho Residents that would like to apply in other States, but live in a State where they don't recognize their earning potential?

Some people sacrifice incredible amounts of income potential, promotions, etc. to live in a State for the outdoor opportunities.

Its all about choices. If you don't like that Wyoming is going to keep their harder to draw tags for their residents, you have options. Just like the person that lives in Wyoming, sacrifices earning potential to the point THEY can't afford to blanket the West with applications and bitch about allocations. They apply for the State they live in and not many, if any others...that used to be common.

Hunting as a NR is pure luxury...and those that live in a State should get a vast majority of the hunting opportunities, not some dude from NY. Way its always been, and rightfully so.

Cry all you want, I'm not changing my mind.

 

[idelkslayer]

I have some thoughts that are half formed and not fully researched.

For the Eastern/southern/midwestern guys: How many deer tags can you legally fill in your home state. How long are your seasons?

Things are different in the west. The majority of western hunters get 1 elk tag per year for a season that is 2-4 weeks. Most western hunters get 1 deer tag also for a 2-4 week season. Pronghorn are not an every year hunt even for most western residents, unless you live in Wyoming. In western states, tag numbers are usually very defined and the total opportunity is limited. Each tag given to NR is less opportunity available to residents.

I am baffled that there are still so many that do not understand the federal land vs state wildlife issue.

If western states had to give equal opportunity to NR on federal land then we would have thousands of residents sitting at home without a tag just so that a small percentage of NR hunters can travel hundreds of miles to hunt while many residents of that location can't hunt or now have travel hundreds of miles away and hunt as a NR in some else's back yard.

It reminds me of a Brian Regan joke about seeing a logging truck go down the road in one direction and later seeing a second logging truck heading the other way. He wonders "If they need logs over there (pointing left) and they need logs over there (pointing right), it seems like a simple phone call would have solved a lot of trouble.

NR hunting has always been a luxury for those who had the extra time and money to hunt somewhere other than home. It is not and should not be used a a primary source of hunting opportunity.

 

[mlgc20]

What? No cage match?

Hey Buzz.

Question for you. When the team put the revenue estimates together for this legislation, do you know what were the assumptions made for future revenue from NR Preference Points? Was it assumed that NR would continue buying preference points at the current rate? Grow by X%? Reduce by X%? Just curious.