WY G&F Faces Budget Shortfall

It appears to me the logical solution to the shortfall is sell wolf tags and quit putting money into the wolf management program.
 
I'd like to see them jack the prices up significantly for resident hunters. Its long overdue. However I'd keep the youth and pioneer prices where they are. The other thing the legislature outta do is give the G&F the power to ticket ORV users for driving off established roads with related fines going back to the G&F. After that, I'd increase prices on ORV stickers with 2/3's of the additional revenue going to the G&F. I'd also require non rezi's to have out of state ORV stickers and send the revenue to the G&F. That should get the ball rolling...
 
I agree.If a hike in fees is in the future ,I hope they leave the youth license alone.We need our youth in our hunting to insure a good future in the sport.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-01-12 AT 06:38AM (MST)[p]+1 Triple_BB However, they already do require NRs to buy a Wyoming ATV permit, so you must have missed that in the Regs., as I think that's what you meant. From what I've read, 80% of the G&F budget is from licenses, PPs, application fees, etc., and 60% of that total comes from NRs. They get 6% of their budget from the General Fund and the other 14% is from stuff like you're talking about. A lot of people don't realize it, but G&F does not get the fines and costs associated with a law violation. Those monies go to the local school district where the violation is handled. The only money they get from a court case is if the Judge orders the defendant to pay restitution if it's a poaching case. They can also seize items used in a violation and I believe if that is forfeited through the court process that they auction the stuff off with that money then going into the budget. I doubt, however, that it amounts to very much.
 
Good points.I would like to see a non-refundable fee of $25-$50 charged for applying for LQ units as well.

G&F is too worried about keeping prices low so everyone can hunt.While I understand their point,those days are gone.Anyone that thinks they can get cheaper meat by going hunting(as compared to the grocery store)is living in the past.

They need to look at things more from a business standpoint.
 
They are running it like a business.....the animals are OWNED by the public, in this case WY residents, and have to be managed for everyone not a select few who have the cash to out bid the rest.

Hate to see it but cost will go up. I retired from a state job and never saw an increase of any kind the lat 6-8 years I worked to include any contract raise or cost of living...now in retirement I have at least 6 years with no cost of living adjustment. I am fast being priced out of hunting. I've gone back to work to put food on the table and gas in the tank. With two kids under 4 I can't work 24-7 because daycare costs as much as I earn. Too bad because when I go so do my two kids..and their kids.. and their kids.....

Trying to balance access and cost. What about charging "extra" for all tags, R and NR, that are in wilderness areas and then allowing the NR to hunt with or without a guide? Plenty of areas would still be available to the average joe.
 
I believe if the agencies can work and do there job with out having politics involved they could better manage the resource and cut costs in doing so. Seems they got to have meetings after meetings so no one steps on anyones toes and study after study to conclude a decision before anything can be done or implemented, at what cost though? Alot of money and time could be saved.
 
I like the idea of a $50 non refundable fee for 1st choice LQ elk and deer areas. However, I'd make it refundable if you don't draw. No reason to penalize someone who doesn't draw and I doubt most who do draw would mind paying a little extra for the priviledge. I'd also say move the resident LQ entry date back to January same as non rezi's and let the G&F keep any interest they earn while holding the money.
 
I'm not quite following you guys on this fee idea. There is already a nonrefundable application fee for both residents and NRs when anyone applies in a draw. All they would have to do is increase it and possibly allow refunds if you drew like you mentioned if there was decent acceptance for it.
 
They seem to increase 20% every 5 years or so, 4% a year. Are their costs of doing buisness really going up faster than our paychecks (0% lol) or inflation? I know... Did they look at cutting costs like most other state governments are forced to do?...

After that exercise... Just make fee increases tied to realistic across the board increases every year. Something on the order of inflation...

The concept of... We need more money. Just gouge the nonresidents for more seems too prevelant in western game departments. That's an option most other government agencies don't have....
 
For anyone interested in watching the G&F meeting at 7PM Mountain Time tonight regarding the budget, etc., it will be live streamed by logging onto their website tonight!
 
As TOPGUN has posted; the G&F Department will be having a very informative meeting tonight. If you are near a regional office, you can attend the meeting in person. If you live out of state, you can log on to the web and watch the presentation. They will be allowing people to submit questions, comments, etc. at the end of the meeting. I was also warned that you will need to be using a newer computer or you may have some technical problems as the older technology cannot keep up with the new programs, etc.
Should be pretty informative. It is the same presentation that was provided to the WY G&F Commission at their last public meeting as well as the Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee (TRW)held in Rock Springs, WY around the end of June.

It does not appears as though the G&F Department will have the recommendations from the private consulting group, Southwick & Assocaites, ready for tonight but will be bringing their recommendations, survey's, etc. to the scheduled TRW meeting later this month in Jackson, WY.
 
Went online a while ago and watched the meeting. I don't know how many people attened at the Regional Offices, but it was depressing that there was only a handful of us watching on computers. It appears whatever license increases are decided won't be instituted until the 2014 season. That is pretty much what I figured due to the length of time it takes to form a proposal and get it heard and passed by the legislature. That will all have to be done during the session next year.
 
As a resident I'd like to see the prices of our tags go up, especially moose, sheep, and goat. I think they are way under priced and maybe if the prices were higher people wouldnt be applying every single member of there family even if they dont care that much about drawing a tag. Mostly though I'd love to see them implement the special price drawing like they have for non-residents. It would raise more revenue and increase drawing odds for those willing to pay more. They could also try not to raise the prices too much on youth, pioneer, and left over or reduced price licenses which still gives everyone an opportunity to hunt. Who knows what they will come up with though.
 
What if WY started having dedicated tags for dedicated hunts like AZ, NV, etc they could raise a ton of extra cash. For example, if WY had dedicated archery hunts for elk in every unit instead of the single tag and the option of hunting both the rifle and archery hunt. For me and my buddy we'd apply every year for an archery only hunt in unit 100 and archery only hunts for pronghorn in the Red Desert.
 
Another thing I'd consider is if they're going to keep giving away commissioners and governors tags, make the group that get's them give a portion of the raised money back to the G&F. How about 50/50 or 60/40. Also a super raffle like they do with Idaho would probably raise some cash...
 
Triple_BB---That was mentioned by a questioner during the meeting that was streamed on the net the other night. All these types of ideas are being given thought and I would think that any organization that is worth a hoot would give back a fair share of the profits if it was needed to keep the G&F functioning up to the level needed so they aren't just treading water. Send that thought in to the G&F in an email or call them at the Cheyenne Office, as they want to hear as many different ideas from people as they can to try and come up with alternate funding sources besides just depending on licenes fees, which is reaching it's limit to keep them viable.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-04-12 AT 11:26AM (MST)[p]Another thing I'd consider is if they're going to keep giving away commissioners and governors tags, make the group that get's them give a portion of the raised money back to the G&F. How about 50/50 or 60/40. Also a super raffle like they do with Idaho would probably raise some cash...


The groups that get the governors tags keep 10%...90% goes back to wildlife.

Very tight accounting on that.

http://www.whfw.org/governor.asp
 
@ $1,500+ for a moose, sheep or goat tag, the non-resident is already paying a large protion of their budget. I believe any increases in tag fees should be the same for non-residents and residents. A 15% increase should affect EVERY applicant, resident and non-resident.

I love Wyoming's draw system, quality hunting and diversity. I just don't want Wyoming to become another Colorado where the residents always complain about the percentage of tags non-residents get and the tag increases always affect non-residents more than residents.
 
BuzzH,

I thought 10% went to the Wildlife Foundation, 10% went to the group which sold the license and 80% went to the species which the license was for; sheep, moose, elk, deer, etc. I also heard that some of the money is dedicated to non-game species but never understood how that was as there are no non-game licenses.

Califelkslayer,

Currently, Wyoming is proposing that all license fees, tags, etc. would be increased by the same percentage. Having said that, a 20% increase on $20 is significantly lower than on a $1000.

I am anxious to see what Southwick & Associates will come up with. They are suppose to be basing a their recommendations on public surveys and questionnaires. I was wondering, has anyone out in monstermuley land received anything from Southwicks? I have been wondering who is helping the G&F Department develop their recommendation.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-04-12 AT 06:56PM (MST)[p]Smokestick,

That is the way it works, the group that sold the tag(s) get 10% of the proceeds.

There is a (small) portion of the money raised that goes into an "all widlife" account. If you look at the link I provided you can see the "all wildlife" projects that have been funded. I think its great that all wildlife gets a small portion of the money raised. Pretty tough to raise money via governors tags for cutthroat trout, sage grouse, pika, etc. etc. I think if hunters are going to go around bragging about all the game and non-game species they're paying for...they ought to show it through actions like these. Hunters truly are funding wildlife other than those they hunt, this is a classic example. Some will say its a waste, but if you look at the funded projects, I'd disagree, all day long. Very worthwhile, and a total positive that all hunters should be proud of...and also take credit for.

Its also fair to note that many projects are fully/partially funded, through 2, 3, or even 4 of the species specific accounts. In the link I provided, you will notice as an example that the elk committee funded part of the upper Dunoir Conservation Easement, and the Sheep committee funded a portion as well. There is benefit there for both sheep, and elk, so both funded a portion.

I'm a recent committee member, but I am impressed with the amount of work that went into the Governors Tags. The accountability and transparency is also top notch...its all there on the links I provided. Every cent is accounted for.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-04-12 AT 09:36PM (MST)[p]BuzzH,

I appreciate you providing the link.

I also agree with you about sportsmen having always taken pride in caring for all wildlife, not just those that we hunt. The fact is it is impossible to do a "mule deer" or "elk" project and only benefit that one species. Other species will also benefit, but the targeted specie is the focus of the project.

I too am proud of what the Wyoming Governor (Dave Freudenthal) did with his program as he was the Governor when this process was put into place. The accountability and transparency is top notch; however, I do have one question though as I cannot understand the following statement copied from the Secondary Seller Information: "A primary seller may retain 10% of the proceeds from the sale, 90% is returned to the Wyoming Wildlife ? The Foundation where, upon receipt, 10% is set aside for administration of the licenses, 10% for the All Wildlife account mentioned above, and 70% goes into the appropriate species account." It might just be the wording but I can see that 10% goes to the primary selling organization and the remaining 90% goes into the G&F Foundation. 10% is allocated for the administration of the account, 10% goes into an all wildlife account (I am assuming that is the small portion you are referring to) and 70% goes into the appropriate species account. So where is the other 10% from the 90% that went into the Foundation?

Congratulations on becoming a committee member. What was the process and how did you get that opportunity? I also looked to see who else might be a committee member as I couldn't see a list anywhere for committee members. All I could find was a listing of Directors for the G&F Foundation.

After posting the message I did see that you are listed as a Member of the WGBGLC. Interestingly enough, you are listed under the Moose specie Committee. 2012 was the first year that we participated in this program as the North American Moose Foundation allowed us to sell a Wyoming Governor's moose license. Sorry, I was looking for "Committee" not "Member"
 
Nothing from Southwicks at this house. Wy G&F probably wouldnt like to hear what I would say anyway.
 
I always hate to see the state game departments having budget issues and I hope they come up with an acceptable solution. And hopefully they understand what has happened in Idaho and don't repeat those mistakes.
 
Smokestick here is the break down from the way I see it. 70% goes into the appropriate species account. 10% for the All Wildlife account. 10% is set aside for administration of the licenses. A primary seller may retain 10% of the proceeds from the sale.

I copied each of those lines from your post.
70% + 10% + 10 % + 10% = 100%

DZ
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-05-12 AT 06:18AM (MST)[p]huntfishall1---The G&F is well aware of what happened up in Idaho, as it was mentioned by the Director in the budget meeting that was live streamed the other night. He also mentioned problems in the adjoining state of WA up there.

DZ---Your math is also what I understood the breakdown was.
 
DZ/TOPGUN,

That was how I initially thought it read as well but when I read it a few more times, it appears to state that the 90% is then dived up with 70% going to the individual species, 10% going to the All wildlife account and 10% being used for administration.

After reading it again, it still looks as though the 10% is taken off of the top and 90% is passed on. Then the process (according to the statement I copied from the web site) is to set aside as they explain but they only state where 90% of that money is allocated.

I know that Buzz posted the exact amount the Governors licenses have raised but for simplicity I am just going to use $100,000.

$10,000 to primary seller.
$90,000 to G&F Foundation which is then broken out as follows:
$9,000 for administration
$9,000 for all wildlife
$63,000 is then put into the 4 species accounts
This gives a total of $81,000 with $9,000 (or 10% remaining).
 
I think where you're making your mistake, if I'm even correct, is that the numbers will only add up to 90% when they get to the Foundation. 10% goes to the seller and 90% goes to the Foundation. They take 10% for Administration and 10% goes for other wildlife. That leaves 70% of the $100,000 ($70,000, not $63,000) for the 4 species account. PS: Math was not my strong subject in school, but I think that's what is happening.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-05-12 AT 08:34PM (MST)[p]They must have already made cut backs..because I tried for 5 days straight to get in touch with anyone from biologist to game wardens and no one ever answered the phone(did they cut employees,or not pay the phone bill?..lol)..Maybe they are in the field too much..gas is expensive....they actually limited our state DNR on how much driving they could do..
 
Biologists and Game Wardens this time of year get pounded with phone calls. Plus, its getting close to being their busy time of the year with archery seasons starting in a couple weeks.

I've always had good luck getting in touch with them in the winter months.

Tough to tell how their budgets are coming up short?

Have you priced a pick-up lately?

How about fuel?

Tires?

Wages?

Insurance?

Retirement?

etc. etc. etc.
 
Well...other states have comparable license costs per tag...some states sell less licenses overall...I understand one thing will not change everything..Other states deal with less income than WG&F and have more overhead,and they make it...this didnt happen overnight...just sayin...I have been employed under state and federal govt..I have seen budget cuts,and I have seen alot of what leads to that..The general public doesnt get the full story..so dont get upset with me..lol
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-05-12 AT 09:44PM (MST)[p]The reason it happens in Wyoming is because their law doesn't allow for automatic increases due to inflation, etc. The G&F has to go through the Legislature for fee increases and they try to get a big enough increase every 4 or 5 years to see them through for that period of time until the next increase is needed. There is a Bill that, if passed, would go to an inflation type increase every year and eliminate huge increases like we'll probably see again in 2014. Please don't gripe about not being able to contact the Warden or Biologist in one quick phone call as those people are some hard workers and that really should have been done a long time ago in their slower time unless there are some extenuating circumstances involved.
 
I spoke with the local warden tonight. It has been the busiest summer he's had. Wyoming is not as well known for its fishing as hunting, but is becoming more known for it... Violations are a year around thing. It'll be curious what the G&F will do in the long run. It would be nice if others who use the resources also contributed for maintenance of non-game species--without hunters and anglers getting zapped with additional fees.
 
There ya go! The guy is even talking business on a Sunday night!!! They definitely n eed to figure out some means of getting money from all the bird and animal watchers, hikers, etc. as they just have too much to do and not enough money to do it with when it just falls on hunters and fishermen.
 
He wasn't just talking, he was working! I crossed paths with him up one of the canyons. He was checking fishermen.
 

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

FCF88031-BAD6-4679-A092-6D11CAEB1A7A.jpeg
A Few Good Bucks on First Scouting Trip
9E36E403-0F44-45F5-A7F0-D05D1B07D333.png
IMG_4094.jpeg
20200715_104749.jpg
2020 EM early Sept 067.JPG
IMG_4905.jpeg
2020 EM early Sept 051.JPG
L1400957.jpeg
draft_31826652_1686693057_1b43ad0c-93e5-480b-b508-cdeeec75a4e6.mp4
20171002_143215.NM (2).jpg
VideoCapture_20211113-093348.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