Other Funding mechanisms for the WY G&F

[feduptwo]

Wapiti bob,
Both az and nm mexico were ahead of Wyoming in the spreadsheet I found. The Utah numbers you listed are for their limited entry units. Their general season prices are lower than Wyoming. Wyoming would be the most expensive state for elk if we were looking at States where residents could buy tags every year. The states that should really be embarrassed is ID and MT. You can buy deer and elk tags for less than a case of keystone light.

As far as the 100% increase comment I was talking type 1 le permits for residents. A 32 type 1 bull tag should cost 100$ for residents. Non residents shouldn't even have the option of paying the non special fee for this hunt. Reserve the split pricing schedule for units with greater than 60% drawing odds and general tags.

 

[feduptwo]

A large % of 80% nonresident revenues comes from the sale of left over permits sold after they were offered in the original draw. Wyoming can continue to fund 80% of the g&f budgets with nr monies and we will. What we can't do is substantially increase non resident prices especially for the "general" and less desirable permits and expect nr's to continue to come. Montana and Idaho have both tried this and are not selling permits.

If I had my way I'd find all ways to maximize revenue without hurting the resource with a goal of lowering the % issued to non-residents. that's not coming from a 10% increase in residents permit fees. That's coming from outside the box thinking including split archery/rifle tags' raising le prices, raising sheep and moose permits by 200-400% and super raffles.

 

[BuzzH]

Feduptwo,

All the things you mentioned, combined, are not going to shore up the G&F budget. Those measures wont make up the 8 million that the department has cut in the last couple years.

Inflation is going to chew up any gains.

You better start thinking a bit further outside that box...non-traditional funding is the only solution.

Just the way it is.

 

[TOPGUN]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-17-14 AT 10:50AM (MST)[p]>Feduptwo,
>
>All the things you mentioned, combined,
>are not going to shore
>up the G&F budget. Those
>measures wont make up the
>8 million that the department
>has cut in the last
>couple years.
>
>Inflation is going to chew up
>any gains.
>
>You better start thinking a bit
>further outside that box...non-traditional funding
>is the only solution.
>
>Just the way it is.


***No sense in trying to convince him that his way will not solve anything funding related! I'd also like to know where he came up with the stat on that leftover tag comment because I don't believe that for a second. The majority of tags left after the draws are cheap tags that take quite a few to be sold to make up for the price of one Type 1 tag. Unless he can show that's a fact from the G&F, I would have to call BS on that one!!! I do agree though that all the tags that are considered good ones will continue to be sold at whatever price they go up to and it will be the lesser ones the G&F might not even sell as leftovers to the "occasional hunter". Then after saying the G&F can continue running on the 80% NRs put into the budget he comes back with a real dousy and wants to cut the percentage of NR tags to 10%. He's thinking outside the box alright!!!

 

[feduptwo]

I understand that we need some general fund money to cover some portion of the budget. No problem with it either. Just saying there's no reason to leave a bunch on the table. Let's maximize revenue and then maybe we can start doing other things like reducing the % of non resident tags, extra habitat work, more fish planted, wildlife highway fencing, more chukar transplants, buying aums for deer winter range, or whatever. With all the ideas were talking millions a year. That buys a lot of fish or habitat work.
Just because it won't single handedly fix the budget crisis doesn't mean its money not worth having.
As far as the 80% funding coming from the nonresidents changing anytime soon your nuts. As long as we don't raise nonresident fees (or don't exceed the inflation rate with the raise)nonresidents will continue to buy a majority of the permits we sell each year. Nothing will change unless we get greedy and I'm Hoping we will have common sense to go down that road.

 

[WapitiBob]

Can't help you on the spreadsheet. My numbers are from the 2014 regs of the mentioned states. I just pulled LE tag prices for comparison, not any GEN tags.

 

[feduptwo]

Topgun,

The 97 type 1 tag still fetches type prices when it is sold after the 1st draw. 75% of these were originally slated for residents yet most all of them end up being sold over the counter to non residents every year. Repeat this exercise with all the tags sold on the eastern half of state after the original draw and it computes to a large percentage of the revenue coming from leftover permits. Permits are not sold a reduced price unless they are reduced price cow calf.

 

[feduptwo]

Bob,

then compare general permits there would be only Five states that you were comparing Utah, Colorado, Montana, Idaho,and Utah. You would find that when comparing general permits Wyoming would be either the first or second highest cost for resident hunting licenses. like stated earlier I am okay with the two tier pricing For general and limited entry permits in Wyoming. I'm also ok with Wyoming being the highest costjust as long as our quality is also the highest, or at least comparable. My whole point was that wyoming residents are currently paying market value 4 general permits.

 

[TOPGUN]

>Topgun,
>
>The 97 type 1 tag still
>fetches type prices when it
>is sold after the 1st
>draw. 75% of these
>were originally slated for residents
>yet most all of them
>end up being sold over
>the counter to non residents
>every year. Repeat this
>exercise with all the tags
>sold on the eastern half
>of state after the original
>draw and it computes to
>a large percentage of the
>revenue coming from leftover permits.
> Permits are not sold
>a reduced price unless they
>are reduced price cow calf.
>


***You're making no sense here because it doesn't matter whether the tags are sold in the draw or as leftovers because the only thing the G&F loses on the leftover tags is the application fee that's not charged. That would amount to peanuts in the overall scheme of things. Total NR tag sales are 80% of what the G&F collects in fees in any given year, regardless of when they are sold.