Wyoming tag allocations.

R

Rambo

Guest
As a Wyoming resident I would like to see all limited quota tags go to 90/10. Most other states are already like this. The hunters that live in Wyoming would havebetter odds at drawing good tags. Giving 10% of the tags to nonresidents would be more than fair, but I doubt the mighty $$$ counters will let that happen. Any other Wyoming residents that would support this. Nonresidents need not respond. I know you are in opposition.
 
Considering you don't use the 84% currently on the books, 90% is pretty much a moot point.

I'll be taking 4 antelope and an Elk back to Oregon this Fall, thanks Wyoming.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-10-14 AT 01:09PM (MST)[p]>As a Wyoming resident I would
>like to see all limited
>quota tags go to 90/10.
>Most other states are already
>like this. The hunters that
>live in Wyoming would havebetter
>odds at drawing good tags.
> Giving 10% of the
>tags to nonresidents would be
>more than fair, but I
>doubt the mighty $$$ counters
>will let that happen. Any
>other Wyoming residents that would
>support this. Nonresidents need not
>respond. I know you are
>in opposition.


Most other states aren't Wyoming and I would suggest that if you don't want us NRs to respond that you not put something controversial like that up on the Forum. Seeing as how we're already paying 80% of the G&F budget and a lot of residents don't even want a measily 10% increase in your already ridiculously low fees, something would have to give. Are you willing to pay a lot more for your tags or come up with another way to make up for the loss of money you'd be talking about? A lot of people say things like you mentioned, but then run and hide when paying the piper is discussed! Residents really have a lot of nerve to not want NRs around when you wouldn't even have a G&F Department to manage wildlife if it weren't for our high fees subsidizing your playground!!! I'm sure we will probably hear from our resident "me me me" member going along with you on your thoughts, LOL!
 
I don't know why I am jumping into this beat down topic but what the heck. I am a resident and I would only support increasing to a 90/10 split for Sheep and Moose. Wyo residents already have more options than we can ever hope for with deer, elk and antelope. I have no sympathy for resident hunters that complain about getting tags for these three species. We can hunt these every year with minimal effort.

Mnt goat wouldn't matter either way and Bison I don't really care one way or the other.

My reasoning for wanting a change in Sheep and Moose allocation is that my odds as a resident are worse, for the most part, than if I was a non-resident. I have heartburn with that. Now this is most likely because the tag fees are so ridiculously low for residents that everyone enters.

First and foremost I believe that Wyoming needs to address the low tag fees for residents. They would be a bargain at twice the price. Once this is done, if odds are still out of whack for sheep and moose then I would support a change in allocation.
 
Rambo

I like the way it is setup currently. If a 90/10 split was to occur I think wy would be losing a lot of revenue and many local businesses would suffer. Wy residents have it pretty good IMO. A general deer tag is a pretty nice thing to have. Us non residents have to choose one unit.
 
mulecreek---I agree 100% with your post and wish that the majority of residents had that same view and philosophy. I think from previous discussions on various forums that we may just see that 90/10 split in the next year or two on the animals you're talking about, but not on deer, elk, or antelope because of the great opportunities already present for residents on those animals.
 
TG, I also wish everyone else agreed with me on everything. LOL I have gone back and forth on this issue and I think I finally settled where I am at.
 
My opinion is that sheep and goats should be random draws with no points, and OIL. The one thing Oregon did right.
 
If you can read and comprehend I said LIMITED QUOTA!!!! The general tags have nothing to do with what I posted. Also I said I didn't want all the NR feedback. I new Flopgun couldn't resist but everyone else sheesh. Lol

The limited quota tags that do not sell out (I doubt there would be many) could go on sale first come first served after the draw.

I would happily pay more money for my tags in exchange for a 90/10 split. I think resident fees are very low right now.

More tags from the really tough to draw units should go to residents. The Wyoming economy will be fine with a few less non resident tags in limited quota units.

Leave the reduced price and cow calf the same.:)
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-10-14 AT 06:13PM (MST)[p]>If you can read and comprehend
>I said LIMITED QUOTA!!!! The
>general tags have nothing to
>do with what I posted.
>Also I said I didn't
>want all the NR feedback.
>I new Flopgun couldn't resist
>but everyone else sheesh. Lol
>
>
>The limited quota tags that do
>not sell out (I doubt
>there would be many) could
>go on sale first come
>first served after the draw.
>
>
>I would happily pay more money
>for my tags in exchange
>for a 90/10 split. I
>think resident fees are very
>low right now.
>
>More tags from the really tough
>to draw units should go
>to residents. The Wyoming economy
>will be fine with a
>few less non resident tags
>in limited quota units.
>
>Leave the reduced price and cow
>calf the same.:)

I can read and comprehend just fine and I/we disagree with you on the 90/10 split for LQ. In order to take each NR tag away like you are proposing and replace it with a resident tag you better be prepared to pay one heck of a lot more for your tag when now it's a mere fraction of what a NR pays. I agree with WB that a random draw with a OIL designation for several of those animals would be the best way to go. The problem with that is that it's just about impossible with the long lists of people that have PPs built up and it's not fair to change the game now and screw them over. Furthermore, just because people disagree on something does not mean that one has to resort to derogatory name calling because all it does is take away from ones integrity and without that your argument becomes secondary! Finally, as I said before, if you don't want NR comments don't put it out on an open Forum where everyone is allowed to post an opinion. This one that would greatly affect NRs and to not figure that you would get a lot of NR comments is wishful thinking.
 
Like I said, when you use up your 84% you might have something. Nr drew every one of the 7,250 LE elk tags we were allocated. All the leftover elk tags bought today were from the resident side.
 
>I can read and comprehend just
>fine and I/we disagree with
>you on the 90/10 split
>for LQ. In order
>to take each NR tag
>away like you are proposing
>and replace it with a
>resident tag you better be
>prepared to pay one heck
>of a lot more for
>your tag when now it's
>a mere fraction of what
>a NR pays. I
>agree with WB that a
>random draw with a OIL
>designation for several of those
>animals would be the best
>way to go. The
>problem with that is that
>it's just about impossible with
>the long lists of people
>that have PPs built up
>and it's not fair to
>change the game now and
>screw them over. Furthermore,
>just because people disagree on
>something does not mean that
>one has to resort to
>derogatory name calling because all
>it does is take away
>from ones integrity and without
>that your argument becomes secondary!
> Finally, as I said
>before, if you don't want
>NR comments don't put it
>out on an open Forum
>where everyone is allowed to
>post an opinion. This
>one that would greatly affect
>NRs and to not figure
>that you would get a
>lot of NR comments is
>wishful thinking.

You should have a say on this issue when you can vote in Wyoming.
 
I have one concern. Elk area 55. Went from being General for years and years.. As ya know the elk herd got hit pretty hard. So the area went to 50 tags. To my understanding they still give a lot of Non-resident tags to help the outfitters out..... So that is quite a few of non-resident tags... Which now pushed the resident hunters to area 56 and kinda over-crowed it. But I predict 56 not being general to much longer.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-10-14 AT 08:30PM (MST)[p]>
>>I can read and comprehend just
>>fine and I/we disagree with
>>you on the 90/10 split
>>for LQ. In order
>>to take each NR tag
>>away like you are proposing
>>and replace it with a
>>resident tag you better be
>>prepared to pay one heck
>>of a lot more for
>>your tag when now it's
>>a mere fraction of what
>>a NR pays. I
>>agree with WB that a
>>random draw with a OIL
>>designation for several of those
>>animals would be the best
>>way to go. The
>>problem with that is that
>>it's just about impossible with
>>the long lists of people
>>that have PPs built up
>>and it's not fair to
>>change the game now and
>>screw them over. Furthermore,
>>just because people disagree on
>>something does not mean that
>>one has to resort to
>>derogatory name calling because all
>>it does is take away
>>from ones integrity and without
>>that your argument becomes secondary!
>> Finally, as I said
>>before, if you don't want
>>NR comments don't put it
>>out on an open Forum
>>where everyone is allowed to
>>post an opinion. This
>>one that would greatly affect
>>NRs and to not figure
>>that you would get a
>>lot of NR comments is
>>wishful thinking.
>
>You should have a say on
>this issue when you can
>vote in Wyoming.

And you, Sir, need to understand that maybe we should have a say in how things are run when we're paying the lions share of YOUR G&F Department's budget! You just don't get it even when WB tried to clue you in with some stats twice. Take away a big chunk like you're talking about and the G&F would not be able to do a lot of things. In case you aren't up on things in YOUR state, the G&F has already made a lot of cuts even with the way things are set up now because there isn't enough money coming in and it's getting worse. Do what you're recommending without some supplemental funding to make up the difference and things will just get worse.
 
>
>>I can read and comprehend just
>>fine and I/we disagree with
>>you on the 90/10 split
>>for LQ. In order
>>to take each NR tag
>>away like you are proposing
>>and replace it with a
>>resident tag you better be
>>prepared to pay one heck
>>of a lot more for
>>your tag when now it's
>>a mere fraction of what
>>a NR pays. I
>>agree with WB that a
>>random draw with a OIL
>>designation for several of those
>>animals would be the best
>>way to go. The
>>problem with that is that
>>it's just about impossible with
>>the long lists of people
>>that have PPs built up
>>and it's not fair to
>>change the game now and
>>screw them over. Furthermore,
>>just because people disagree on
>>something does not mean that
>>one has to resort to
>>derogatory name calling because all
>>it does is take away
>>from ones integrity and without
>>that your argument becomes secondary!
>> Finally, as I said
>>before, if you don't want
>>NR comments don't put it
>>out on an open Forum
>>where everyone is allowed to
>>post an opinion. This
>>one that would greatly affect
>>NRs and to not figure
>>that you would get a
>>lot of NR comments is
>>wishful thinking.
>
>You should have a say on
>this issue when you can
>vote in Wyoming.

I think tags should be split between residents and nonresidents by using the same percentages as they fund for the FG budget. So if nonresidents fund 80% of the budget they should get 80% of the tags. Seems extremly fair to me.


"Go hunt for meat at Walmart."
 
>I have one concern. Elk area
>55. Went from being General
>for years and years.. As
>ya know the elk herd
>got hit pretty hard. So
>the area went to 50
>tags. To my understanding they
>still give a lot of
>Non-resident tags to help the
>outfitters out..... So that is
>quite a few of non-resident
>tags... Which now pushed
>the resident hunters to area
>56 and kinda over-crowed it.
>But I predict 56 not
>being general to much longer.
>


I would have to disagree with you Michael. NRs didn't get any bigger percentage of tags in 55-1 than is set up in the statute for any other unit. If you will look in the draw stats, of the 50 tags allocated for that unit in the Final Regulation 42 of the tags went to residents. Therefore 8 tags to NRs sure doesn't sound like too many to me. If 56 is getting like you said, maybe they will also make it an LQ unit, but the percentage of tags going to NRs will be what is set by statute just like WB mentioned in his posts.
 
>>
>>>I can read and comprehend just
>>>fine and I/we disagree with
>>>you on the 90/10 split
>>>for LQ. In order
>>>to take each NR tag
>>>away like you are proposing
>>>and replace it with a
>>>resident tag you better be
>>>prepared to pay one heck
>>>of a lot more for
>>>your tag when now it's
>>>a mere fraction of what
>>>a NR pays. I
>>>agree with WB that a
>>>random draw with a OIL
>>>designation for several of those
>>>animals would be the best
>>>way to go. The
>>>problem with that is that
>>>it's just about impossible with
>>>the long lists of people
>>>that have PPs built up
>>>and it's not fair to
>>>change the game now and
>>>screw them over. Furthermore,
>>>just because people disagree on
>>>something does not mean that
>>>one has to resort to
>>>derogatory name calling because all
>>>it does is take away
>>>from ones integrity and without
>>>that your argument becomes secondary!
>>> Finally, as I said
>>>before, if you don't want
>>>NR comments don't put it
>>>out on an open Forum
>>>where everyone is allowed to
>>>post an opinion. This
>>>one that would greatly affect
>>>NRs and to not figure
>>>that you would get a
>>>lot of NR comments is
>>>wishful thinking.
>>
>>You should have a say on
>>this issue when you can
>>vote in Wyoming.
>
>I think tags should be split
>between residents and nonresidents by
>using the same percentages as
>they fund for the FG
>budget. So if nonresidents
>fund 80% of the budget
>they should get 80% of
>the tags. Seems extremly
>fair to me.
>
>
>"Go hunt for meat at Walmart."
>


Sounds good to me too!
 
"If you can read and comprehend I said LIMITED QUOTA!!!! The general tags have nothing to do with what I posted. Also I said I didn't want all the NR feedback."

I never realized there where General tags for non-ressy's? I thought they all are LQ numbers?

Robb
 
>"If you can read and comprehend
>I said LIMITED QUOTA!!!! The
>general tags have nothing to
>do with what I posted.
>Also I said I didn't
>want all the NR feedback."
>
>
>I never realized there where General
>tags for non-ressy's? I thought
>they all are LQ numbers?
>
>
>Robb


I think when he referred to "General Tags" that he was strictly speaking about resident tags. If he's talking about LQ tags for both residents and NRs, I'm presuming he's talking about individual units that are LQ for NRs, rather than what are a number of units that can be hunted on our Region Tags, that strictly speaking ar still LQ, but are available in big numbers.
 
>I never realized there where General
>tags for non-ressy's? I thought
>they all are LQ numbers?
>
>
>Robb


Are you a resident? Nope, that's why you don't know what I'm talking about.
All but one response on this thread has come from NR hunters because they love hunting Wyoming. I can understand that.
I'm sure guides oppose this also as most of their business comes from NR hunters.

Hopefully someday the tough to draw tags for resident hunters will have a 90/10 split. (I'm not talking about doe/fawn tags or cow/calf tags. Or general/regional deer tags.)

I'm not trying to attack NR, I have met some great guys out in the field that were NR. I just want to see more residents draw good tags.

I know Wyoming has great opportunity's for hunting, that's why I live here.

Good luck on your hunts this season. It's good too see you guys love hunting Wyoming.
 
Mr Rambo,
I'm a non-res, can read, hunt a little, can be very happy for other people when they draw a moose tag (you), and I have a couple questions for you.
The Wyoming residents shout that they don't want Wyoming to operate and look like every other State so.....
Why is there such a push to remove the funding for the G&F and reduce NR tags? Why is there such a push to make Wyoming look like every other State when nobody wants that anyway? Why is the attitude all about reallocation of NR tags when it would slash the NR tags by half while only improving resident odds by a fraction?
If you want to improve odds for residents simply increase the ridiculous res tag prices and those who pay their dues will then be the ones who draw instead of every Tom, Richard and Harry.
Some of us have paid our due for years and years in application fees and points fees and a 50% slash of the tags would be a slap in the face for our loyalty.
Remember this, we're all in this thing together. I never did subscribe to the us vs them mentality.
Sorry Mr Rambo but, of course, I respectfully disagree with you.
Zeke
 
Rambo

I know you were referring to LQ tags but for us NR region tags are LQ. I must admit in quite jealous you can hunt region g and h every year then head to other regions if unsuccessful. So you want a 90/10 split but what about a residents point system or do residents get 90% of tags but still random draw? I personally don't like point systems but will play the game because I want to draw tags.
 
>Mr Rambo,
>I'm a non-res, can read, hunt
>a little, can be very
>happy for other people when
>they draw a moose tag
>(you), and I have a
>couple questions for you.
>The Wyoming residents shout that they
>don't want Wyoming to operate
>and look like every other
>State so.....
>Why is there such a push
>to remove the funding for
>the G&F and reduce NR
>tags? Why is there such
>a push to make Wyoming
>look like every other State
>when nobody wants that anyway?
>Why is the attitude all
>about reallocation of NR tags
>when it would slash the
>NR tags by half while
>only improving resident odds by
>a fraction?
>If you want to improve odds
>for residents simply increase the
>ridiculous res tag prices and
>those who pay their dues
>will then be the ones
>who draw instead of every
>Tom, Richard and Harry.
>Some of us have paid our
>due for years and years
>in application fees and points
>fees and a 50% slash
>of the tags would be
>a slap in the face
>for our loyalty.
>Remember this, we're all in this
>thing together. I never did
>subscribe to the us vs
>them mentality.
>Sorry Mr Rambo but, of course,
>I respectfully disagree with you.
>
>Zeke

I agree resident tag fees should be raised.
I am also happy for others when they draw tags and I try to offer help when I can.

It is also frustrating how difficult it is to draw good nonresident tags in other states.
I understand what you are saying and I wasn't looking at it from the point of view you pointed out.

Thank for the insight.
Good luck this year. I hope you have a great hunt.
 
Rambo,
Don't get me wrong, I sense your frustration! I've been in the big game application mode for 40+ years and I've seen lots of changes and very few are good. (we had an example of this from our neighbors to the south just this year)
I'm just hoping that before everyone jumps on the anti-nonres split bandwagon that they do some simple math and really realize how little it would change the resident odds by slashing the non-res quota.
Zeke
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-14 AT 02:53PM (MST)[p]Rambo---You say you arent' trying to attack NR hunters, but essentially you are doing exactly that when you want a cutback in our tags from the present system. As mentioned in another post, what you are asking for is not going to appreciably alter your odds of drawing a resident tag in the harder to draw units. Please sit down and do some simple math and I think you will find out that you will do a lot of harm to the G&F budget, while doing very little to up your odds to draw that tag you want. It also would not be a good way to treat NRs who have spent a ton of money for PPs to now change the rules in the middle of the game. I do think we'll see what you're asking for two or three of the animals like sheep, moose, and goats that may go to that 90/10 split because of the very limited number of tags issued overall. However, from what it sounds like when other residents that are quite involved in this issue talk about it, it sounds like the majority don't feel the need to change the present split for elk, deer, and antelope.
 
OK, I did some quick, down and dirty math;

There are approx 4286+ resident applicants for sheep tags. Non-res applicants got about 50 of the 190 tags so if you took half of 50 away that would leave the non-res with 25+/- sheep tags and increase the resident's quota by 25.

Let's see what it really does for you;

Simple math will tell you that there will still be 171 residents applying for each and every sheep tag that was removed from the NR quota. WOW, that's not even a drop in the bucket!

4286 applicants for 140 tags = 1 in 30.6 (the way it is now)
4286 applicants for 165 tags = 1 in 26 (the way some want it)

For a 6% better chance for residents, some would reduce the NR's chances by HALF or more.

It just doesn't seem productive! That's why the non-residents squawk louder than the residents cheer whenever this topic is discussed.

Zeke

Note: all the numbers are +/- since I did it quickly
 
As you can see, the BEST way to help your odds if to get a dramatic resident tag fee increase and get the guys out of the way who really only apply because it's so ridiculously cheap.

Ok, I'm done for now.

Zeke
 
Oh, I didn't even calculate the short-fall that would drop at the feet of the G&F with the lost revenue from the tag fee difference but MOSTLY THE FUTURE AND CONTINUED LOSS OF THE POINTS FEE!!!!!
The financial swing would be just as dramatic for the residents as the increased chance to draw is ridiculous!
Zeke

Mr. Rambo,
In no way did I feel a personal attack from you (but it was an attack on all my NR brothers and we're all NR's somewhere). I've always enjoyed our conversations and hope to continue. Have a GREAT hunt and I hope we have some tales to swap!
Zeke
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-14 AT 04:32PM (MST)[p]"If you can read and comprehend I said LIMITED QUOTA!!!! The general tags have nothing to do with what I posted. Also I said I didn't want all the NR feedback."

I never realized there where General tags for non-ressy's? I thought they all are LQ numbers?


______________________________________________________

Here is a clue dumbazz Rambo---You 'Aint' a Utard' Resident anymore and you cried forever about screwing Non-ressy's when ya lived in Utardia---

Get a F'k'n clue ya mooch--

Robb
 
Just thought I would mention, for argument sake...
Wyoming Deer - $43.00 (Resident)
$326.00 (Non-Resident)
Utah Deer - $40.00 + $34.00 hunting license = $74(R)
$268.00 + $65.00 hunting license = $333 (NR)
Nevada Deer - $30.00 + 33.00 = $66 (R)
$300.00 (NR)
Colorado - $34.00 (R)
$364 (NR)

Seems to me by looking at the numbers, WYO is right on track with other states. I am not sure what the fuss is about. NR are paying on par with other states and R are on track with other states as well.
 
One more mention, Zeke did some great dirty math. But, for R, alot of them buy points and don't put in for the draw, so there is variable in your total tag allocation that is not mentioned. If more tags were given out, I am sure there would be less point buyers?

I usually stay out of the tag argument because no-one wins. NR pay a large portion, but they also pay a large portion in every state.
 
riot16-----

There are NO ressy points in Wyo for elk, deer, antelope....so much for your dirty math post....

Thanks for your #2 post though and welcome to M&M.

Robb
 
>LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-14
>AT 04:32?PM (MST)
>
>"If you can read and comprehend
>I said LIMITED QUOTA!!!! The
>general tags have nothing to
>do with what I posted.
>Also I said I didn't
>want all the NR feedback."
>
>
>I never realized there where General
>tags for non-ressy's? I thought
>they all are LQ numbers?
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>
>Here is a clue dumbazz Rambo---You
>'Aint' a Utard' Resident anymore
>and you cried forever about
>screwing Non-ressy's when ya lived
>in Utardia---
>
>Get a F'k'n clue ya mooch--
>
>
>Robb

I don't know where you got your info but I'm only 26 years old and I never said a word about screwing NR when I lived in Utah. You can call me whatever names you want but you don't know me personally. You make yourself look like a big man calling me names on an internet forum.

To Topgun I apologize for calling you Flopgun.

I'm done on this issue.
Good luck this fall everyone. Jake
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-14 AT 06:03PM (MST)[p]I'm a NonRes and agree that residents should get a higher percentage of the "special" tags. Makes sense that residents should get a 90-10 split on moose sheep and goats. But I am from Utah and we limit NonRes to a 90-10 split so I am familiar with it. I can't imagine how Utah residents would feel if we proposed a 75-25, but I'd wager they would not be happy.

For me, I applied for and drew a WY moose tag that was in a "lesser" unit just to get out of the WY moose game. Changes seem to be coming, nothing ever stays the same. Just because we apply doesn't afford us any future rights. So thanks to WY- my 2nd favorite state to hunt. I hope to be back in the next few years, too.
 
Boy...You sure stepped in sh** with this post, Jake! Lol.

I will say this though...there is plenty of resident support for this change...
 
The one thing no one has mentioned is the land status where most sheep and moose are hunted. The majority of those hunts occur on Federal lands (Forest Service or BLM) and those lands are "owned" by everyone in the US.

I think I would be careful advocating for a 90/10 split on licenses that are used primarily on Federal Lands. Might not come out in favor of the folks that live in Wyoming.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Theres a few issues being discussed on this thread, and jm77 and I have been talking about it the last 2 days at a sportsmen advocacy conference we attended.

First, with the current legislature in place, a fee increase of any kind, either on R or NR's is going to face some tough sledding.

Its doesnt matter if the Residents are willing to pay more if the Legislature keeps torpedoing any bills that will increase fees.

Second is the issue of the tag allocations. There is a very good chance that there will be a bill introduced during the 2015 session to make moose, goat, sheep, and bison to reallocate those tags to 90-10. As has been stated, there will for sure be opposition by the outfitters and guides regarding it, and jm77 and I were told so by someone who would know.

How this shakes out is going to depend on who shows up to support or oppose the bill.

The concerns about the loss of GF funding is not going to sway the bill. There isnt much revenue loss by reducing the tag allocations to 90-10. Secondly, a majority of Residents are supporting this for sheep, moose, goat, and bison.

However, I am prepared, and will oppose a 90-10 split for deer, elk, and pronghorn. These species need to stay at the current allocations. Unlike MSGB, a 90-10 split for elk, deer, pronghorn will have a very significant economic impact on over-all economics of WY...from the Game and fish, to outfitters, to gas stations, to restaurants, etc.

I've struggled with this issue and have expressed my concerns about the 90-10 in regard to MSGB...but IMO, its going to pass no matter what I think. Enough residents want it and if they bother to show up in Cheyenne, they'll get it done.

But, there will be fierce opposition if the elk, deer, and pronghorn are added to the 90-10 allocation, and any bill including those species will most likely never see the light of day.
 
Clearcreek,

The land status doesnt make one bit of difference and Wyoming is in no danger of losing anything if they pass the 90-10 split. Federal, as well as State Law, affords Wyoming the right to discriminate agaisnt NR's when it comes to the States Wildlife Resources.

Wyoming could choose to not issue a single NR tag of any kind and be in no danger of legal action, with the exception of reciprocal laws being passed in other states that discriminate against WY Resident hunters.
 
After USO won the lawsuit vs Az. and they drew tags without separating applicants that year, they had one of the highest revenue from tag sale's ever.

Of course I wanted to see that win by USO and yes I got hammered and every now and then some one from Az. will bring it up to me...

I have no problem what so ever about my state going to an Equal draw everyone in the same hat as it would help so very much on any of our DWR/F&G dept. budgets.

Plus it would have helped all of us in any other state we applied in as it would have been an Equal draw for every one.

Then Sen. Harry Ried/Demo. out of Nv. added to the Tsami relief aid fund bill this 'States manage wildlife how they see fit' no doubt the relief aid bill passed with this rider passing too.

Now we have this type hunter screwing hunters logic in most every state and to me it sucks for all of us period.

Robb

PS. I finally answered all the PM's....no biggy on the Rants as I myself Rant every now and then too....no harm--no foul...
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-12-14 AT 06:44AM (MST)[p]>After USO won the lawsuit vs
>Az. and they drew tags
>without separating applicants that year,
>they had one of the
>highest revenue from tag sale's
>ever.
>
>Of course I wanted to see
>that win by USO and
>yes I got hammered and
>every now and then some
>one from Az. will bring
>it up to me...
>
>I have no problem what so
>ever about my state going
>to an Equal draw everyone
>in the same hat as
>it would help so very
>much on any of our
>DWR/F&G dept. budgets.
>
>Plus it would have helped all
>of us in any other
>state we applied in as
>it would have been an
>Equal draw for every one.
>
>
>Then Sen. Harry Ried/Demo. out of
>Nv. added to the Tsami
>relief aid fund bill this
>'States manage wildlife how they
>see fit' no doubt the
>relief aid bill passed with
>this rider passing too.
>
>Now we have this type hunter
>screwing hunters logic in most
>every state and to me
>it sucks for all of
>us period.
>
>Robb
>
>PS. I finally answered all the
>PM's....no biggy on the Rants
>as I myself Rant every
>now and then too....no harm--no
>foul...


Were you really ranting, LOL?! I thought that maybe somebody gave you a wedgie and your shorts were a little too tight when you posted those, LOL! On a more serious note, I think what BuzzH stated with those four species will happen in the next few years, but not with the other species because there is too much mney involved just like he mentioned. Anyway, IMHO the residents have it pretty good now with the way things are set up and the number of various animals they can take in any given year.
 
How frustrating it is to apply in states like Idaho that issues as little as 0% and no more than 10% to non-residents. New Mexico gives the DIY NR only 6%. Voice this frustration as a NR in the Idaho or New Mexico forum and the typical ignorant response is; "if you don't like it go hunt elsewhere." Meanwhile, if WY proposes a restructuring of NR tags to reciprocate the same ID and NM residents cry, ##### and moan that a reciprocal approach is suddenly "not fair."

It is obvious residents of any state do not want to give up a single tag to a NR if they don't have to. The hypocrisy is the same people showing a sense of entitlement to their NR tags when it proves self-serving.

I personally support a substantial fee increase across the board, I support the implementation of a point system, and I do feel the current 80/20 split is VERY FAIR. My gripe is simple when other states and their sportsmen do not reciprocate or even consider with the same 80/20 split for their non resident allocation.
 
Ditto what Buzz said except for one thing: I am not troubled at all that Wyo residents want allocations for moose, sheep, mtn goat & bison to be in line with all other states. I too will oppose any effort to change allocations on elk, deer & antelope, as that will kill the attempt to change the others and at this point we have no alternative revenue source.

Except for outfitters and a few uninformed taxidermists(they are being told 90/10 includes all big game) there is very good support for the upcoming bill.
 
In Wasington there is no split on any draw tags and it is fairly cheap for nonresidents to apply for oil species. I am sure that is why WA has the worse draw odds for oil species. I would nearly kill for the odds that WY residents enjoy for oil species with the current split.

"Go hunt for meat at Walmart."
 

Similar threads

BuzzH
WY NR application fee increase proposed
Replies
79
Views
4k
jm77
jm77
Stubaby
La Sal mid season LE elk tag.
Replies
4
Views
358
elkassassin
elkassassin

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

9D50BC02-9D24-425A-A4EF-85BE516F1D31.jpeg
IMG_2185.JPEG
9F1B00BE-C57A-4804-B283-C7D75EAA5BB3.jpeg
A332F146-5945-4D2E-ACF6-9FE9C1789E4D.jpeg
IMG_0675.jpeg
090BBC1A-E766-4563-9F5B-1EF65D8555F0.jpeg
IMG_1961.gif
First High Country Scouting Trip 2018
Screenshot_20220907_153301.jpg
86D33F99-7B8F-436E-8FB7-6C15F6594B23.jpeg
IMG_2178.jpeg
Screenshot_20220907_152918.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