NR point sharing and tag allotment.

JakeSwensen

JakeSwensen

Active Member
Messages
680
What's your opinion on Non-resident hunters jumping to the front of the line by sharing points with someone who has a lot of points built up every year?
The same guys hunting (Region G)the greys river for 5 or 6 years straight is crazy when it takes 6 points to draw.
But if you're famous or you have a lot of money and an outfitter hooks you up with a high point holder. I guess it's okay right. ha ha
Why doesn't Wyoming put a 10% cap on Non-resident tags like the surrounding states have? Don't worry there are ways to make up the revenue. Resident Bonus points for deer, elk and antelope would be a good start
[font face="verdana" color="green"]
Jake Swensen
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-17 AT 12:33PM (MST)[p]Until they make point sharing illegal the way it is I really can't blame guys for hooking up with high PP holders to do as you mentioned. It takes a person out of a top PP pool, which is good, but it does harm those with fewer PPs who are waiting in line. The 60% Special Draw also screws the guys that can't afford that high price, so that also puts people ahead of others in case you haven't thought about that! A 10% cap on NRs would cut millions of dollars from the G&F budget and NRs is who they rely on to keep them afloat and the state doesn't have enough resident hunters to do what you're saying. If you look at the Bill that is in the Legislature right now, it is asking to raise the NRs fees at least 20%, while the resident fees will only go up 3%. The fact is that every state charges fees for NRs at least 10 times as much as their resident fees. In case you haven't noticed, the G&F just got an almost 6 million dollar cut to their budget, which along with inflation and not having a fee increase for ten years is really putting them in a bind. Your idea expressed in your last sentence wouldn't pay for the gas to keep one GW's truck on the road for a year, LOL!
 
No way, that's not happening! That's just rumor on the point sharing. ha ha

Seriously, the guys with the 10 or 11 points bought them, they should have some flexibility with them. If they want to share them with their kid, their wife, a friend, then so be it I say. I have a bunch of elk points in Utah and I might share them with the wife. I don't know. I like having that option. I've paid for them for years. Maybe I'll change my opinion some day.

If Wyoming had other good, limited entry deer hunting options, you wouldn't see much point sharing going on I don't believe.

As for tag allocation, I'm a non-resident, so I think they should do 99% non-resident and 1% resident. ha ha
Seriously, I like hunting there, so I like more non-resident tags. I should just move up there.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
I don't see it as that big of a deal but I'm a resident. There's still the same number of NR hunters and preference points still have to be accrued to hunt there. My guess is the amount of high point holders going in with low point holders is not that many in comparison to the total number of tags allowed. Let em use their points and get out....
 
I think non-residents over 65 years old should be able to buy 3 points each year at a reduced price, but not allowed to share them.

Please? haha!
 
Website owners should get a free tag each year for promoting hunting in Wyoming. They should put that into law, right? ha ha

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
Hello EEl,
You support my cause. My 2 cousins and my son and I have applied for an elk tag to hunt near Dubois with a local outfitter with archery equipment. One cousin has 1 point less than the rest of us. We have hunted in the west for the last 23 years and thanks to point averaging we will probably draw our tags as a group. This draw does not require a boatload of points as it is by law guided for non residents and is a good ways into the wilderness. I would support sensible restrictions on point sharing.
J_T_B
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-17 AT 04:22PM (MST)[p]Raise the nr fees by 20%, do the same for residents. Then cut NR tags to at least 15% (i would like to see 10%). Furthermore, make NR apply for elk tags the same as residents. It's a bunch of BS NR get to draw their tags prior to the quota being set. Makes me laugh when a guy spends a few weeks a year in Wyoming, but wants to dictate what we should, or shouldn't do.
 
I would support point sharing with family but not just someone trying to jump the line. Family only point sharing. Awesome!
I am in support of raising resident and nonresident fees if that's what it takes to get the nr cap to 10%. If it were dropped to 15% that would still be better than what we have now.[font face="verdana" color="green"]
Jake Swensen
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-17 AT 05:43PM (MST)[p]>Raise the nr fees by 20%,
>do the same for residents.
>Then cut NR tags to
>at least 15% (i would
>like to see 10%). Furthermore,
>make NR apply for elk
>tags the same as residents.
>It's a bunch of BS
>NR get to draw their
>tags prior to the quota
>being set. Makes me laugh
>when a guy spends a
>few weeks a year in
>Wyoming, but wants to dictate
>what we should, or shouldn't
>do.

Do you have any idea what the resident fees would have to be increased to in order to cut the NR tag quotas to 10% or 15%? The Legislature is scared to increase them more than a few dollars a piece because they're scared there would be a big backlash. Your "wish" would essentially require raising every resident license by hundreds of dollars to make up for the short coming when NRs put in 80% of the fees that the G&F collects every year! You also need to sit back and take a breath because the NRs had nothing to do with "dictating" the time period that they are obliged to apply for an elk tag or when the NR draw is held! Your "wishes" will not happen when there is no way for the G&F to make up millions of dollars that would occur by cutting the NR quotas to 10% to 15%!
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-17 AT 06:12PM (MST)[p]
>
>Do you have any idea what
>the resident fees would have
>to be increased to in
>order to cut the NR
>tag quotas to 10% or
>15%? The Legislature is
>scared to increase them more
>than a few dollars a
>piece because they're scared there
>would be a big backlash.
> Your "wish" would essentially
>require raising every resident license
>by hundreds of dollars to
>make up for the short
>coming when NRs put in
>80% of the fees that
>the G&F collects every year!
> You also need to
>sit back and take a
>breath because the NRs had
>nothing to do with "dictating"
>the time period that they
>are obliged to apply for
>an elk tag or when
>the NR draw is held!
> Your "wishes" will not
>happen when there is no
>way for the G&F to
>make up millions of dollars
>that would occur by cutting
>the NR quotas to 10%
>to 15%!

Mike, you may not believe this, but the fiscal impact of converting big game to 90/10 in Wyoming could easily be picked up by residents. The math has already been done.

There are many factors you are not taking into consideration. One is that with elk, there would be no difference because nonresident elk licenses are capped at 7250. Six percent of the LQ tags would convert to Gen. With antelope, many of the resident tags already are purchased by nonresidents, because the residents don't buy them all.

Your argument that the revenue couldn't be made up is totally false.
 
The WG&F must be doing something wrong if they aren't getting more $ from nonres than res! You may want to take a look at this interesting article about Colorado! According to the article nonres paid 38 million for licenses to hunt deer and elk while in-state hunters only brought in 7.6 million.

http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/local/2014/10/11/big-game-hunting-big-money-colorado/17116425/

There is a lot more to it than just selling licenses. Small town communities in Western Colo also figured out that nonres are the life-blood of their local economies. Here's another interesting article. According to the article nonres spend an average of $216/day and residents $106/day on hunting expenses and supplies while hunting Colorado.

http://www.denverpost.com/2013/03/2...ting-boycott-produce-fear-of-economic-losses/
 
Another interesting thing mentioned in the articles I posted above is that 85 to 90% of outfitter's clients are nonres. Do you think the Wyo Outfitters Association is going to shoot themselves in the foot by supporting anything to do with cutting nonres tag allocations? The last time I checked Outfitters in Wyo have a pretty big input on what happens at the state level?
 
>Mike, you may not believe this,
>but the fiscal impact of
>converting big game to 90/10
>in Wyoming could easily be
>picked up by residents. The
>math has already been done.
>There are many factors you are
>not taking into consideration. One
>is that with elk, there
>would be no difference because
>nonresident elk licenses are capped
>at 7250. Six percent of
>the LQ tags would convert
>to Gen. With antelope, many
>of the resident tags already
>are purchased by nonresidents, because
>the residents don't buy them
>all.
>Your argument that the revenue couldn't
>be made up is totally false.

I'm all ears Jeff because it sure doesn't look simple to me! According to 2014 stats on the G&F website it shows NRs paid twice as much in fishing fees as Residents (4 million + to 2 million +). PPs for NRs totaled 5.25 million dollars, while resident PP fees took in only $69,111. Discounting the elk tags that would go as you mentioned and might come out static, the other animals have anywhere from a 80/20 split to a 75/25 split for resident tags versus NR tags. If those splits go to 90/10, which effectively reduces NR numbers by 50% or more, how can the residents "easily pick up the difference", as you put it, with the huge license fee discrepancy between residents and NRs along with the other probably millions of dollars lost in PPs, Conservation Stamps, etc. that wouldn't be purchased by the resultant loss of NR numbers? I'm not from the show me state of Missouri, but I'd sure like to hear how what you say can be "easily done" when the Legislature is reluctant to even increase a resident license by $5 in the latest Bill introduced in the ongoing Legislative session!
 
I think there is a false conception that point sharing takes tags away from others who are waiting in line.

Let's look at Region G that last year took 5 points to draw and assume an average point creep of about .5 point per yer to get to That point level.

If hunter A has 10 points and teams up with hunter B with zero points to apply. That scenario takes two total tags out of the unit over an 11 year period (10 years of point accumulation and drawing on 11th year).

Now let's assume that same hunter A had always applied for region G from the beginning. Let's be conservative and assume he didn't draw the first year when everyone started at zero points.
Year 1 he doesn't draw and there are no points
Year 2 he draws with 1 point and it takes 0.5 points.
Year 3 he has 0 and it takes 1 point to draw
Year 4 he has 1 and it takes 1.5 to draw
Year 5 he has 2 and it takes 2 so he draws his second tag.
Year 6 he has 0 points and it takes 2.5 to draw.
Year 7 he has 1 and it takes 3 to draw.
Year 8 he has 2 and it takes 3.5 to draw.
Year 9 he has 3 and it takes 4 to draw.
Year 10 he has 4 and it takes 4.5 to draw
Year 11 he has 5 and it takes 5 to draw so he draws his third tag

So in the point sharing scenario hunter A actually takes fewer tags out of the draw pool over the same period of time!

People forget that point creep actually hurts the guys who share points and keeps more tags available in the long run.
 
>What's your opinion on Non-resident hunters
>jumping to the front of
>the line by sharing points
>with someone who has a
>lot of points built up
>every year?
> The same guys hunting (Region
>G)the greys river for 5
>or 6 years straight is
>crazy when it takes 6
>points to draw.
>But if you're famous or you
>have a lot of money
>and an outfitter hooks you
>up with a high point
>holder. I guess it's okay
>right. ha ha
> Why doesn't Wyoming put a
>10% cap on Non-resident tags
>like the surrounding states have?
>Don't worry there are ways
>to make up the revenue.
>Resident Bonus points for deer,
>elk and antelope would be
>a good start
>[font face="verdana" color="green"]
>Jake Swensen

How does changing it from 20% to 10% affect a resident.... I thought a resident could buy a general deer tag?
 
>I'm all ears Jeff because it
>sure doesn't look simple to
>me! According to 2014
>stats on the G&F website
>it shows NRs paid twice
>as much in fishing fees
>as Residents (4 million +
>to 2 million +).
>PPs for NRs totaled 5.25
>million dollars, while resident PP
>fees took in only $69,111.
> Discounting the elk tags
>that would go as you
>mentioned and might come out
>static, the other animals have
>anywhere from a 80/20 split
>to a 75/25 split for
>resident tags versus NR tags.
> If those splits go
>to 90/10, which effectively reduces
>NR numbers by 50% or
>more, how can the residents
>"easily pick up the difference",
>as you put it, with
>the huge license fee discrepancy
>between residents and NRs along
>with the other probably millions
>of dollars lost in PPs,
>Conservation Stamps, etc. that wouldn't
>be purchased by the resultant
>loss of NR numbers?
>I'm not from the show
>me state of Missouri, but
>I'd sure like to hear
>how what you say can
>be "easily done" when the
>Legislature is reluctant to even
>increase a resident license by
>$5 in the latest Bill
>introduced in the ongoing Legislative
>session!

Fishing? Mike, what does that have to do with this?

It could be assumed that PP revenue might suffer, but considering how many people put in for far fewer available tags(even with Wyo at 10%) and pay more to do it in other states, I doubt there would be an appreciable difference there. The cost to apply in Wyoming is cheaper than most all the 'go to' western states. NR would still apply here.

The conservation stamp has to be bought by residents too and for the same price; no difference there. It's the number of licenses that is directly related to the number of stamps.

Again, with elk being no different, antelope tags going almost 50% NR anyway, limited quota deer, moose, sheep, bison, and mtn goat would be the license revenue lost the most. The deficit on all those without deer included is 170K, which could be made up with a $15 PP fee and modest increase in res license fee on moose, sheep, & goat which are way to low anyway That pretty much leaves LQ deer. By raising the cost of deer, elk and antelope, that 10% could be covered also.

Just to be clear, I do not support changing elk, deer or antelope to 90/10. I will not fight that battle. What I am trying to say is you are wrong about residents not being able to cover the revenue deficit.
 
I guess you guys weren't too impressed with the impacts of nonres hunters in Colo. Here's an article related to Wyoming.

http://www.huntwyo.com/blog/protecting-wyoming-nonresident-hunting-licenses/

According to this article a 90/10 license allocation on all big game hunting licenses in Wyoming would cut the number of nonresident hunters in Wyoming by half. That would equate to a loss of $100 million in tourism revenue, $7 million in lost license revenue for the Game and Fish Department, 250,000 acres in land access, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in Conservation Stamp funding.

Nothing has been mentioned above about economic impacts to small town communities but 100 million in tourism loss seems like a chunk of cash to me? With Wyo's current economic statis it would be like shooting small business's in the foot!
 
It doesn't matter to me what a state does on fee's or % of tags.

I just apply and if I draw fine, if I don't I just roll my refund over to the next state.

Robb
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-17 AT 08:41AM (MST)[p]There are no resident general antelope license in Wyoming. Second, there are many elk and deer unit's in Wyoming that are draw only.

Again, there are things wyoming can do to offset the costs. For one,the state needs to step up and help fund some of the GNF budget. The states lodging tax would be a great place to start.

Wyoming receives plenty of "tourists" dollars every year, but thanks for being so concerned for us. I think it's more of a concern you getting your tags than it is "helping" our economy.

Be honest now..how many of you NR are pushing your own state to allow more NR tags. Didn't think so.
 
Jim's, if you are so concerned for us here in Wyoming feel free to write a letter saying how you want to pay more for your tags. And then come up and take a few trips a year around Yellowstone just to help us out. I mean after all you are concerned for economy right?
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-17 AT 11:01AM (MST)[p]>I guess you guys weren't too
>impressed with the impacts of
>nonres hunters in Colo.
>Here's an article related to
>Wyoming.
>
>http://www.huntwyo.com/blog/protecting-wyoming-nonresident-hunting-licenses/
>
>According to this article a 90/10
>license allocation on all big
>game hunting licenses in Wyoming
>would cut the number of
>nonresident hunters in Wyoming by
>half. That would equate to
>a loss of $100 million
>in tourism revenue, $7 million
>in lost license revenue for
>the Game and Fish Department,
>250,000 acres in land access,
>and hundreds of thousands of
>dollars in Conservation Stamp funding.
>
>Nothing has been mentioned above about
>economic impacts to small town
>communities but 100 million in
>tourism loss seems like a
>chunk of cash to me?
> With Wyo's current economic
>statis it would be like
>shooting small business's in the
>foot!

***I'm not too worried about what Jeff is saying because I just don't believe his math is anywhere near accurate and it also involves a big guessing game as to what NRs would do or not do if they were cut to a 10% share of the tags. It's rather ironic that Jeff says the residents could easily make up the difference when the Legislature is scared to even ask them to pay $5 more for each of their licenses whenever a Bill is introduced like the one in the hopper this time. I just did some quick math as far as fees go. If a resident and a NR were to each buy one deer tag and one antelope tag along with a doe tag of each species at the present rates the costs would total $135 and $708 along with the $12.50 Conservation Stamp each would have to buy. Thus, it takes more than 5 residents putting into the pot for what one NR puts in just for the license fees. Throw in the possible loss of millions of dollars of PP fee money that many would tell Wyoming to stick it if they can't get more than 10% of the tags would IMHO be devastating to the G&F budget. Then toss in the figures you mentioned and if the tourism revenue even fell by 1/2 of that 100 million dollar figure it would put many places in a real hole if not bankruptcy. In closing, I'm going to mention that our good buddy BuzzH on another website posted that the resident fees in this latest Bill before the Legislature are a JOKE! I would have to agree with that assessment 100%!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-17 AT 10:19AM (MST)[p]Yup topgun, nr would just all but stop applying in Wyoming if we cut the tag numbers to 10%. Just like Utah, Nevada, Arizona,among others. We should just have you make a trip down from Michigan and get us all lined out here wyoming. I mean after all you do spend a week or two here every year.
 
>There are no resident general antelope
>license in Wyoming. Second, there
>are many elk and deer
>unit's in Wyoming that are
>draw only.
>
>Again, there are things wyoming can
>do to offset the costs.
>For one,the state needs to
>step up and help fund
>some of the GNF budget.
>The states lodging tax would
>be a great place to
>start.
>
>Wyoming receives plenty of "tourists" dollars
>every year, but thanks for
>being so concerned for us.
>I think it's more of
>a concern you getting your
>tags than it is "helping"
>our economy.
>
>Be honest now..how many of you
>NR are pushing your own
>state to allow more NR
>tags. Didn't think so.


First of all, we're not talking about other states. We're talking about the great state of Wyoming. However, since you bring it up, here in MI other than the limited bear and elk hunts that are even very restricted to residents due to the limited number of animals available, we don't have any restrictions on the number or NRs that can come here and hunt anything else from small game to waterfowl to deer. Now let's get back to Wyoming. Your comment in your first paragraph IMHO doesn't mean a thing because, regardless of what the tag is called, they are the same price and all the resident G&F tag prices are so low as to be ridiculous. Then you say there are things the Legislature could do to offset the loss in revenue if NR tags are cut such as giving the G&F a percentage of the lodging tax or General Fund money. FYI in case you haven't heard, the state just cut millions of dollars from the G&F budget because of these hard times they are having due to their energy dependency for revenue. You also have to have people fill those rooms before any revenue comes in that could even be shared with the G&F! It's very doubtful that any Legislator is going to jump for joy and help the G&F out when it is way down the totem pole of things they have to deal with on a day to day basis. Wyoming, IMHO, just does not have the number of resident hunters to support the G&F the way it is run right now if the NR tags were cut to 10% max. Good discussion and it's obvious that each of us has our own interests at the forefront of any discussion/debate on something like this.
 
Grosventrehunter, I take multiple scouting and hunting trips to Wyo each year so likely do a fair job of helping out several small town community's economy. I may not impact local business's much on my own but according to the article above it would be a 100 million dollar loss to Wyoming's economy if nonres tag allocations were dropped. Whether you believe it or not the 100 million dollar loss is substantial!

There is an overwhelming negative response in Colorado in regard to cutting nonres tags. Colo actually offers more nonres tags and proportion of tags for elk and most other species than any state in the Western US. I know exactly how much nonres contribute to the small town communities so have never really been that excited about creating havic by being in favor of cutting nonres tags.
 
>Website owners should get a free
>tag each year for promoting
>hunting in Wyoming. They should
>put that into law, right?
>ha ha
>
>Brian Latturner
>MonsterMuleys.com
>LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
>on Facebook!


Or cut off you greedy non residents that what everything for themselves. And just maybe as a resident I could draw a lq tag. If I was a non resident I could of already had some lq tags.

Sorry just had to say it
 
Very good we are talking about wyoming. I was putting examples on your plate to feed you a little info in regards to plenty of people applying if we cut tags to 10%. Hence the Utah,Nevada,Arizona comment.

Yes,unlike you, I know exactly where the state is financially. You can read all the newspaper articles you want from your couch in Michigan, but you still don't know much. I see it ever budget year sitting at a conference table with real numbers in front of me.

It amazes me the state gives millions to patrol and DCI (among other LE agencies), but does not help GNF. In Natrona county alone the state gives over 225,000 a year just to "borrow" four LEO. That's one county!! Maybe some of that money should get deferred to GNF? There is going to come a day when the state has no choice but to step up and help out GnF.

Oh hey,I almost forgot!! I don't mind if people share points. I do have an issue with people putting in non-hunting family members/friends just to build points for themselves.
 
>Yup topgun, nr would just all
>but stop applying in Wyoming
>if we cut the tag
>numbers to 10%. Just like
>Utah, Nevada, Arizona,among others. We
>should just have you make
>a trip down from Michigan
>and get us all lined
>out here wyoming. I mean
>after all you do spend
>a week or two here
>every year.


No sense being a smartazz when we're all adults here trying to have a meaningful conversation! 100% of NRs may keep applying Bro, but what you're obviously missing is that if the tags are cut 50% or more that means there are 50%+ fewer NR hunters buying the licenses that are left, along with the Conservation Stamp, possibly PPs, etc. You are correct on one thing and that is that the Legislature will/would have to come up with some way to supplement the G&F budget because as Idaho and Montana found out, you can't just keep raising the NR fees or you will get to the point where you'll be begging NRs to come hunting there because you made it unaffordable to many people. You also are quite mistaken because since I retired in 2002 I now spend at least a month and normally two months every year in Wyoming, not a couple weeks!
 
>LAST EDInn inTED ON Feb-05-17
>AT 08:41?AM (MST)
>
>There are no resident general antelope
>license in Wyoming. Second, there
>are many elk and deer
>unit's in Wyoming that are
>draw only.
>
>Again, there are things wyoming can
>do to offset the costs.
>For one,the state needs to
>step up and help fund
>some of the GNF budget.
>The states lodging tax would
>be a great place to
>start.
>
>Wyoming receives plenty of "tourists" dollars
>every year, but thanks for
>being so concerned for us.
>I think it's more of
>a concern you getting your
>tags than it is "helping"
>our economy.
>
>Be honest now..how many of you
>NR are pushing your own
>state to allow more NR
>tags. Didn't think so.


Back in May I went to Jackson to a NECA covention for work. Its a convention for electrical contractors.that are part or neca. They talked about increasing tags to help fund wyoming fire protection. Thats where I pay for my journeyman and contractor lic. I said helllll noooo. The state fire
Protection cant fund themselves nor run a office worth a darn.so that's why I was against it and on top of it raise my electrical lic. Cost.

So I know the money we pay for tags don't all go to game and fish. I know the game and fish needs more money but all im saying is I didn't like hearing this at my confernence due to the fire protection board running themselves to crap.

I know others know exactly how all this money is divided and something needs to be done
 
What in the world would your Conference have to do with talking about game tags and the G&F budget Michael? The G&F has to account for every dollar they take in and where it goes and it certainly is required to go for mandated programs that are spelled out. What they may have been talking about at the Conference sounds like a real stretch to then think that the G&F is wasting money when an audit they routinely undergo would catch any malfeasance!
 
>>Website owners should get a free
>>tag each year for promoting
>>hunting in Wyoming. They should
>>put that into law, right?
>>ha ha
>>
>>Brian Latturner
>>MonsterMuleys.com
>>LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
>>on Facebook!
>
>
>Or cut off you greedy non
>residents that what everything for
>themselves. And just maybe as
>a resident I could draw
>a lq tag. If I
>was a non resident I
>could of already had some
>lq tags.
>
>Sorry just had to say it
>

Surprised to hear you make a general comment like that Michael, as I think you know that is not a fair statement to make! It was not the NRs that asked for a PP system if that's what you're referring to that would get a NR an LQ tag where you have not been able to draw one under the random system that residents have. I'll take your random draw every day over any PP or similar type system!
 
Maybe someone will chime in how all this money is spent.

But basically the state fire and prtoection that pays electrical inspectors and that.collects are fees for my electrical lic. Is.dead a$$ broke. . These people from the state talked about hunting lic. Increase to help fund the state fire protection... I know it sounds kinda bogus but they went on and on. Cause rasing just my electrical lic and contract lic isn't enough to fund them so they havr to skim from somewhere else. Like I said hopefully someone can show how and where all our money gets divided and spent
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-17 AT 01:36PM (MST)[p]Grosventrehunter, It's good to hear that you are in favor of family members sharing points and applying together to draw tags.

I'm not sure if you heard but Alaska just passed a deal last year that pretty much screws Alaska residents that enjoy hunting sheep, mtn goat, and grizz with their next of kin family. This new law made it so that both the Alaska resident and his next of kin can not both draw these tags the same year,,,only 1 of them can draw a tag. What seems weird is 2 nonres that apply together with a guide can both draw tags and go on guided hunts together. It seems that Alaska family members are screwed but outfitted hunters aren't?
 
>>>Website owners should get a free
>>>tag each year for promoting
>>>hunting in Wyoming. They should
>>>put that into law, right?
>>>ha ha
>>>
>>>Brian Latturner
>>>MonsterMuleys.com
>>>LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
>>>on Facebook!
>>
>>
>>Or cut off you greedy non
>>residents that what everything for
>>themselves. And just maybe as
>>a resident I could draw
>>a lq tag. If I
>>was a non resident I
>>could of already had some
>>lq tags.
>>
>>Sorry just had to say it
>>
>
>Surprised to hear you make a
>general comment like that Michael,
>as I think you know
>that is not a fair
>statement to make! It
>was not the NRs that
>asked for a PP system
>if that's what you're referring
>to that would get a
>NR an LQ tag where
>you have not been able
>to draw one under the
>random system that residents have.
> I'll take your random
>draw every day over any
>PP or similar type system!
>

I was being a smart @$$ to founders.comment trying to get him fired up. You know I am not one to.complain about how the system works.could be better and could be a lot worst. I just keep putting in for my tags and if I don't draw there is next year...
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-17 AT 02:44PM (MST)[p]Jims, like I said before. I have no issue with point sharing as long as it is hunters doing the sharing. I do not like the idea of non-hunters buying points to later share with hunters. Hunters helping other hunters is the way it should be. I would like to take the point sharing a step further. I believe point/tag holders should be able "donate" them to any immediate family member who are under the age of 18. For example; dad to daughter, grandfather to grandson. If I'm not mistaken Arizona does something like this. I'm also not a fan of the wilderness law. Its crap...It's a law pushed by the outfitters association. Nothing like the goverment helping out a select few (private businesses).

Seems the outfitters are winning in Alaska too.
 
Grosventrehunter so what you are saying is a non-hunter puts in for elk points for 3 years. His buddy only has 1 point and not enough to draw tag. So the non-hunter say's to his buddy, if we put in as a party they average the points out and we can both draw our tags. So the non-hunter and his buddy cough up $577.00 each and draw the elk tags. So what is the non-hunter going to do with his elk tag? cook it in butter for $577.00? I don't care how good of non-hunting buddies you have but they are not going to spend good money so you can draw a tag. What are you thinking?
 
Benhuntn, that's not what I'm saying. Example; Your wife who does not hunt at all, doesn't even have hunter safety card, starts buying and building points so when you need them they are there. Or a friend who has never hunted before and you start paying for him to buy you points so you can use them at a later date. I can guarantee this is happening more than most think.
 
That makes a lot of sense in regard to non-hunters applying in a party application. That's a pretty bold way to go about drawing tags! Requiring applicants to have a hunter's safety likely helps. I'm not sure if there are many wives that are willing to take a hunter safety class.
 
Even if is your wife is putting in for points it won't work. Her points are in her name and if she puts in with you you will have to pay for her tag and she will have to shoot the animal. Whoever buys the points has to shoot the animal so how will that help you? The point purchaser has to kill the animal.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-17 AT 04:37PM (MST)[p]The person putting in for points has to be the shooter of the animal. All of the non hunters points are for that individual and when that person finally draws a tag with their points they are the person that can harvest that animal period. So if grosventrehunter has his wife build points $50 each and he puts in for points at $50 each. When they decide to put in for an elk tag it will cost him $1154 for one elk. How is that a good idea. You can not shoot her elk for her and have her tag it. VIOLATION!!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-17 AT 04:51PM (MST)[p]

Really!! This is not really that hard to understand. What I'm talking about is completely legal...ready? You eat the cost of your wife's take. How many people on here have openly stated in a post or two they would pay for another person's tags, if they were allowed to apply with them. This happens all the time on here. So what's the different if they buy another person's tag, or pay for their "non-hunting" wife's tag. They, if ethical, don't actually hunt on the other persons (non-hunters) tag they just eat the tag and costs.
 
So you are willing to pay double the cost of an elk tag plus the cost of additional preference points to kill and elk. Here's your sign.
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-05-17 AT 04:56PM (MST)[p]I never said I was willing, but there are people out there doing this very thing. Where are you from, Canada.

Just wait and watch what I'm talking about. You will see it again this year on MM. There are people out there, I'm a resident so I have no need, willing to do the very thing I'm talking about for just ONE tag. Do a search...
 
Just because there are stupid people in this world does not mean I am one of them. I also am a Wyoming resident but I hunt all the western states if I can draw a tag.
 
GH, it's a waste of time, but it was worth the laugh!

Trust me I need it today...
 
>GH, it's a waste of time,
>but it was worth the
>laugh!
>
>Trust me I need it today...
>

Wow! I'm wondering if he gets it now, LOL!
 
>>GH, it's a waste of time,
>>but it was worth the
>>laugh!
>>
>>Trust me I need it today...
>>
>
>Wow! I'm wondering if he
>gets it now, LOL!


Sorry Mike, he does get it. Can't say the same for the rest of you.
 
BenHuntn,

I think underestimate what some people would be willing to do to get a tag. For many, paying twice as much to get a tag is no big deal. I don't think it happens a lot, but not because of the cost factor.
 
"Wyoming, IMHO, just does not have the number of resident hunters to support the G&F the way it is run right now if the NR tags were cut to 10% max."

TG,

A big reason many Wyo residents push back against increased license fees is because we are so generous with our NR allocation. Drop that allocation to 10% and you will see more residents on board with much higher fees.
 
In Oregon the point sharing is done at a very large scale. One of the main reasons is you don't have to pick up the tag for the non hunting party. I know it happens in Wy too. When money can buy tags it is always a game changer.

DZ
 
TG,
>A big reason many Wyo residents
>push back against increased license
>fees is because we are
>so generous with our NR
>allocation. Drop that allocation
>to 10% and you will
>see more residents on board
>with much higher fees.


IMHO that really doesn't make much sense and really sounds counterproductive if you want to have a well run G&F Department that's fiscally sound! You are correct in your final statement though, because the residents would either get on board with much higher fees than they pay now or they will abandon their hunting tradition if they lack the money or refuse to pay those higher fees.
 
>
>IMHO that really doesn't make much
>sense and really sounds counterproductive
>if you want to have
>a well run G&F Department
>that's fiscally sound! You
>are correct in your final
>statement though, because the residents
>would either get on board
>with much higher fees than
>they pay now or they
>will abandon their hunting tradition
>if they lack the money
>or refuse to pay those
>higher fees.

I'm trying to understand why you would think license allocation has anything what so ever to do with "a well run G&F Department that's fiscally sound.

X amount of revenue required to run the Dept is all that is required no matter how they get it.
 

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

7B7B10D5-E477-4A31-88D9-32020643FCDC.jpeg
20240814_133714.jpg
fullsizeoutput_23e7.jpeg
IMG_2049.jpeg
7B5CCC8B-FE78-4FF7-AC96-48E3F70697A2.jpeg
PXL_20211026_214446916~2.jpg
CD56ACD9-7D97-4DE8-913C-99E71FFEEBD6.jpeg
E00D82C9-B63F-4B40-866E-C445BB25C9E6.jpeg
24 buck 1.jpg
D16352F8-D5B1-4CDC-B991-862B98D4832C.jpeg
C5410534-FF55-4F45-AB40-1454E77A1172.jpeg
WEBPAGE_20200902_104054.jpg

Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Badger Creek Outfitters

Offering elk, deer and pronghorn hunts on several privately owned ranches.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, and moose in Wyoming.


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses
Back
Top Bottom