WY legislation

[WapitiBob]

Since MM would rather have Tristate than Buzz, I'll post the info Buzz would have provided.

New legislation heading thru the process, takes affect Jan 2018 if they pass...

Fee increase again, about 3% for resident and 20% for us rich NR.
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2017/Introduced/HB0288.pdf

And up again, the 60/40 Special/Regular swap a roo..
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2017/Introduced/HB0278.pdf

 

[TOPGUN]

Some of the fees like Bison,are more than doubled under HBO288! The Bill HBO278 IMHO is a poorly written attempt to reverse the 60% Regular Draw and 40% Special Draw, as the way I read it there is nothing in there regarding the fees the way it appears to show there is the way it's written. I guess we all need to start sending the emails out in force again and making phone calls like the last time we defeated this one in Committee telling them they are playing into "the rich man is the only person that will hunt game" and they will actually lose revenue because the majority of people can't afford the prices for the Special Draw if it goes to 60%.

 

[osu92]

Who do those emails and calls need to be made to?

 

[Togwotee]

Why waste your time? as a NR your opinion is less than worthless to a WY elected official.


You have one way to get attention, stop applying. and how many of us are going to do that? not me.


This is just one of those things you either play by their rules or walk away. I don't like it but that's the way it is.












Stay Thirsty My Friends

 

[BenHuntn]

Speaking of Buzz Hettick. I was in California over the Christmas season and Buzz was giving a commentary of the transfer of public land to states. He was giving his oppinion against the land transfer. This was on the radio.

 

[TOPGUN]

>Why waste your time? as
>a NR your opinion is
>less than worthless to a
>WY elected official.
> You have one way to
>get attention, stop applying.
> and how many of
>us are going to do
>that? not me.
> This is just one of
>those things you either play
>by their rules or walk
>away. I don't like it
>but that's the way
>it is.
>Stay Thirsty My Friends


That is far from the truth when you're talking the big sums of money that NRs put into the Wyoming economy during hunting season. This same reversal of percentages was in the Legislature two years ago and the NRs swamped the Committee members where the Bill was being heard initially and it didn't even make it out of the Committee hearing to the floor. If they are told again that giving 20% more of the tags to the Special Draw that costs a lot more than the Regular Draw and that many people can't pay and will quit applying the resultant loss of money to the G&F, as well as to many other businesses that rely on NRs they'll listen!

 

[Togwotee]

I don't recall that bill, but they've already changed the special/ regular draw quota with no adverse effects whatsoever. so I don't see why they'd fret about it too much.

The last big go around was to cut NR quotas. this has a very negative financial impact on every front to the state and many businesses, thus the reason the outfitters fought it and won.

A tag price increase on the other hand has a very positive impact up to the point NR hunters stop applying. if as you suggest enough NR hunters quit over the increase to make the price increase a net negative to the lost application fees I would agree with you. I do no see this happening.

This is a revenue decision as well as a bone toss to resident hunters ( and voters ) like Buzz who wanted our quota cut. if they won't cut us the next best thing is a price hike on us.














Stay Thirsty My Friends

 

[TOPGUN]

> I don't recall that bill,
>but they've already changed the
>special/ regular draw quota with
>no adverse effects whatsoever.
>so I don't see why
>they'd fret about it too
>much.
>
> The last big go around
>was to cut NR quotas.
>this has a very negative
>financial impact on every front
>to the state and many
>businesses, thus the reason the
>outfitters fought it and won.
>
>
> A tag price increase on
>the other hand has a
>very positive impact up to
>the point NR hunters stop
>applying. if as
>you suggest enough NR hunters
>quit over the increase to
>make the price increase a
>net negative to the lost
>application fees I would agree
>with you. I do
>no see this happening.
>
>This is a revenue decision as
>well as a bone toss
>to resident hunters ( and
>voters ) like Buzz
>who wanted our quota cut.
>if they won't cut us
>the next best thing is
>a price hike on us.
>Stay Thirsty My Friends

Two years ago there were two big Bills that were both defeated. One was the push to change the Regular Draw Percentage to 40% and the Special Draw to 60% like the Bill that has been introduced again this Legislative Session. If it can be defeated in Committee last time, it can be defeated again for the exact reason I mentioned. The other Bill you are talking about was to cut the NR % from 20% to 10% for the moose and sheep draws. That was also defeated when the financial losses were presented to the Legislators. Money talks and if enough people speak out against that percentage change we can win again. IMHO the G&F should have a tag fee increase since it's been a long time since the last one. However, I also feel that several of the purposed fees that are already 4 digits (Bison for one)and would more than double under the Bill are outrageous!

 

[Triple_BB]

I notified my House rep to support HB0288. Fee increases are overdue. It looks to me like the proposed non resident fees are in line with most of the states I apply in. Hopefully this passes.

 

[feduptwo]

The NR LQ hunt areas including region G & H deer should be 100% special, (except youth should be normal price). The market would support it. The general hunt areas including general elk tags, cow tags, and other regions should remain a 50/50 split because the market won't support huge increases. Wyoming would be smart to learn from other states like Montana that non residents won't support huge increases for average hunting.

 

[Togwotee]

I would argue the fee increases are not overdue. WY is not a cheap state . but I think they will pass.

The one fee you might be screwing yourself with is the preference point fee hose job. you got a little greedy there and ran a lot of people off on moose and sheep. does the high fee offset the lost applications at a lower fee? who knows, but I'm thinking no.

After my wife and I drew our WY sheep and moose tags we bagged it on applying. for $100 and $75 the odds of starting over and drawing again are just not worth it. it's a suckers bet for anyone below the middle of the point pool today.

But higher tag fees? sure, I'm not going to walk away because of that if I'm at or near the points I need to draw.

It's all about money nothing else. it's all good if you just accept it for what it is.







Stay Thirsty My Friends

 

[jm77]

HB228 is pretty much the "walking dead". Because of how it disenfranchises nonresident youth hunters, the Wyoming Sportsman's Alliance(and it's eight group members) are opposing this bill.

It's good to know resident sportsman care about the future of hunting by supporting NAM and recruitment, retention, and reengagement of past and future hunters.

 

[2lumpy]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-17 AT 01:22AM (MST)[p]Im a poor boy, and retired to boot. I have a lot of points for deer and moose. I don't want to see the cost to hunt Wyoming increase.......however, as the cost to operate these Fish and Game departments go up, as they always do, justied or not, the increased costs need to be covered, either via tag/application increase for non-residents, and/or resident, or non-hunters out of the State's General Funds, or some other "creative ways", like auction of a % of the tags to the highest bidder. None of these opinions appeal to most of us, and class action resistance can and will delay any change but..... sooner or later, the Wyoming political system will get pressed for revenue hard enough and will choose one of the opinions, whether "we" (including me) like it or not.

I'd say, with Wyoming population in decline: http://www.denverpost.com/2016/12/22/wyoming-population-drops/

We are going to see a "tough sh!t" moment come out of the Wyoming Legislature one day soon and they are going to pick one of the opinions mentioned above. Non-residents won the last round, the auction tag alternative lost when it was considered, the population in decline isn't going to tolerated a bigger allocation for sportsmen via Fish and Game's budget.

We best be prepared for something and be careful what you oppose because you may really hate the alternative, when they finally get pissed off and ram something through.

DC

 

[TOPGUN]

>Im a poor boy, and retired
>to boot. I have
>a lot of points for
>deer and moose. I
>don't want to see the
>cost to hunt Wyoming increase.......however,
>as the cost to operate
>these Fish and Game departments
>go up, as they always
>do, justied or not, the
>increased costs need to be
>covered, either via tag/application increase
>for non-residents, and/or resident, or
>non-hunters out of the State's
>General Funds, or some other
>"creative ways", like auction of
>a % of the tags
>to the highest bidder.
>None of these opinions appeal
>to most of us, and
>class action resistance can and
>will delay any change but.....
>sooner or later, the Wyoming
>political system will get pressed
>for revenue hard enough and
>will choose one of the
>opinions, whether "we" (including me)
>like it or not.
>
>I'd say, with Wyoming population in
>decline: http://www.denverpost.com/2016/12/22/wyoming-population-drops/
>
>We are going to see a
>"tough sh!t" moment come out
>of the Wyoming Legislature one
>day soon and they are
>going to pick one of
>the opinions mentioned above.
>Non-residents won the last round,
>the auction tag alternative lost
>when it was considered, the
>population in decline isn't going
>to tolerated a bigger allocation
>for sportsmen via Fish and
>Game's budget.
>
>We best be prepared for something
>and be careful what you
>oppose because you may really
>hate the alternative, when they
>finally get pissed off and
>ram something through.
>
>DC


You can toss out your Utah BS way of auctioning more tags in Wyoming to make up the difference in funding and you can take that to the bank! Other states see what a disaster that is in Utah with hundreds of tags taken from the regular pools to allow the rich and "entitled" to jump ahead of everyone else. Arizona told SFW to take a hike several years ago when it was attempted, as Idaho is right now and Wyoming will do the same if anything comes down the pike trying to increase auction tags!

 

[Sierra]

I wonder how many non-residents would pay $4,400 to kill a bison? That increase seems out of line with the other increases.

 

[2lumpy]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-17 AT 03:40PM (MST)[p]They certainly can and they did toss out auctioning tags, and as you mentioned they can and did toss out raising the price of non-resident tags, and you may be successful in getting them to toss it out again, and..... if an attempt to raise the price of resident tags is made, that can be tossed out as well. Also, if they refuse taking a larger piece of the General Funds pie, at the expense of the non-hunting public, where does that leave the Wyoming Fish and Game Dept to turn for additional revenue?

Bottom line....Where does Wyoming come up with the funds they need to pay for an ever increasing cost of services?

If you were the Wyoming Fish and Game Director or if you were a Wyoming Legislator, what would you do to increase Wyoming's Fish and Game revenue?

Someday they will do something, so be sure, while you are protesting this proposal, what you are willing to do or not do, or you may end up with something you like a lot less, like the auction option that you mentioned you more than detest.

Like I said, I'm not a wealth person, and I really hate to see the cost to hunt in Wyoming go up for me, but I'm willing to pay more, as a non-resident, if that is what they need to do to keep the Department viable.

Which of the opinions, that they have, are you willing to accept without protest, because you're going to get one of them, or so it seems to me.

DC

 

[Triple_BB]

Front page article in the local paper today states the G&F is facing more cuts. It notes its been almost a decade of no change in hunting and fishing license fees. A price increase is definitely overdue. My House rep responded that she absolutely supports this bill. Guess we'll see in the coming weeks if it passes.

 

[Teepee]

Here's a link to the Casper Star Tribune article that discusses license increases:

http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreati...cle_0a7fbeed-0c57-5fb0-81a6-9311adb89b5a.html

Here's a question for the resident hunters. (The Non-res are getting charged plenty already). Since we buy our licenses online now, what if there was an option tab to pay an extra amount towards your license. For instance, I have very good pheasant hunting within a couple of miles of my house near Sheridan. The pheasant license (game bird) is $16 + a 10 if you're hunting a walk in/release area. I would pay 50.00 (or more) for that same license in a heartbeat. Ditto for elk & deer in that I would be willing to pay more. Not saying I'm rich by any means, but doing ok with double income and no kids in the nest. Not saying this would necessarily generate tons of $$$ for G&F, but just curious of others thoughts.

 

[TOPGUN]

2Lumpy---You need to read a little closer, as I stated I'm fully behind a license fee increase and have been for some time because it's been many years and inflation alone has put the G&F in the hole. The only negative comment I made about the current Bill is that IMHO a couple of the fees like Bison are excessive when they have n more than doubled the existing 4 digit fee.

The Bill I'm completely against is attempting to switch the tag allocation from 60% to 40% in the Regular Draw and go from 40% to 60% in the Special Draw. That will effectively eliminate a lot of blue collar folks that would get shut out of the Regular draw with a 20% drop in tags.

You may want to look into how the Wyoming G&F is funded because the limited General Funds they get are dedicated funds for specified programs that have nothing to do with hunting. The Wyoming citizenry prefers that the G&F not receive much in the way of General Funds so they are not "beholden" to the general public that doesn't hunt or fish.

 

[2lumpy]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-17 AT 08:01PM (MST)[p]I'm sorry, apparently I misunderstood your over all concern for an increase in non-resident fees for big game, in general, in Wyoming.

Your right, it was my fault for not reading your statement more carefully.

You are very correct, I have not done an in-depth study of Wyoming's General Funds and how it does or doesn't allocate resources to Wyoming Fish and Game. However, when funds run short in any State department, in any State in the country, it seems as the Legislature and the Dept with the short fall begin to consider different alternatives, to meet the short fall. Regardless of what their practice has been in the past.

Apparently Wyoming is not using much from the State General Funds so they are not "beholden" but my point is this. If they can't get funding from other options, some of which I mentioned, they may believe they are being forced to reconsider their past funding system.

And you were not the only one wondering how to deal with non-resident fee increases, to which I was trying, in my pitiful way, to say, "If not this, then what?" And..... be careful what you reject because you may not like the other alternatives as much as the ones you've rejected.

In reality, it's really the people of Wyoming's problem and their solution to find. I feel it is a privilege to travel there and hunt under whatever system they determine works best for them. In light of that, I should have stayed out of the conversation.

DC

 

[TOPGUN]

Just got word from WapitiBob that the 60%/40% switchero tag Bill went down this afternoon!!! It was being pushed by MOGA and they then tried for a 50/50 that also went down.