Wyoming elk tag allocation discussion

[541hunter]

Wondering if any one else has listened to the Facebook live with Wyoming fish and game about elk tag allocation. I found some of the numbers interesting. 55% of the budget is from licensing and fees and of that 75% funding is non resident. Non residents account for only 17.2 % of tags. And a grand total of 82% of funding comes from non residents. I personally had never heard the numbers before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LostArra]

Eye opener for me: $7.5 million revenue in 2016 from non-resident preference points.

 

[LostArra]

other interesting 2016 revenue figures:
$18.3 million non-resident licenses
$5.4 million resident licenses
$84,000 resident preference points

 

[LWC]

Those are interesting numbers. I'm glad to be spending some of m $$$ there. Wonder if other western states have a similar funding structure?

 

[TravKatQ]

For how much $ they get from NR’s I sure wish they would let us (NR) hunt the wilderness areas...dumbest law


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tyeager2964]

I agree but unless non residents stop providing there funding they won't change.

The guides would obviously and understandably be against it as would the residents but when I am basically paying your way I should get a seat at the table or at least be of equal footing.

It is discrimination just not one that is likely to change.

 

[Trial153]

If you created a more sustainable model that was made viable based on the majority of funding coming from the those use the resource the most you’d have residents and land owners screaming bloody murder. Not only in WY but throughout the West.

 

[tyeager2964]

I agree there isn't an easy answer. I think if someone had about 20 to 30 million to burn they could fight the non res wilderness issue in court and win.

Or you could easily point out that hikers, my bikers, back country skiers, etc all utilize wilderness areas that I believe are all federal lands.

I just think having a state pass code or legislation (not sure what Wyoming game laws are considered) that restricts federal land use by activity that is legal to the states residents is not just or legal.

It is not going to change today next week or next year or even likely this decade but it is BS

And i know this has been beaten to death so I won't continue to put this dead horse further into the ground

 

[Joe Schmo]

Interesting outreach strategy.
Makes me wonder if this was a good or bad year to burn my points...we probably don't know the answer to that question yet.

 

[realunlucky]

Interesting outreach strategy.
Makes me wonder if this was a good or bad year to burn my points...we probably don't know the answer to that question yet.

Joe it's always a good year to burn points and get a tag.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[mproberts]

Those are interesting numbers. I'm glad to be spending some of m $$$ there. Wonder if other western states have a similar funding structure?

Yup, most states have that same funding structure because why wouldn't you if you were the state. Classic case of supply and demand... and NRs keep buying into it. Honestly I have less of an issue with the states sticking it to NRs because that is just good business for them and their taxpayers, I have more of an issue that they are allowed to control all the game in the state. NRs almost exclusively foot the bill for the vast federal lands that allow for large game populations and access in western states, and in return allows those states to then stick it to NRs. It's just wrong that NRs are providing these game lands for the states and in return the states are allowed to control the game and allowed to pass the benefits on almost exclusively to residents.

I already went off on this a few weeks ago, and like tyeager2964 said "I won't continue to put this dead horse further into the ground"... I'll just leave it be.. I guess... haha

 

[El General]

Yup, most states have that same funding structure because why wouldn't you if you were the state. Classic case of supply and demand... and NRs keep buying into it. Honestly I have less of an issue with the states sticking it to NRs because that is just good business for them and their taxpayers, I have more of an issue that they are allowed to control all the game in the state. NRs almost exclusively foot the bill for the vast federal lands that allow for large game populations and access in western states, and in return allows those states to then stick it to NRs. It's just wrong that NRs are providing these game lands for the states and in return the states are allowed to control the game and allowed to pass the benefits on almost exclusively to residents.

I already went off on this a few weeks ago, and like tyeager2964 said "I won't continue to put this dead horse further into the ground"... I'll just leave it be.. I guess... haha

The alternatives to state control of wildlife are all bad if you are a hunter.

 

[idahohikker]

Non residents forget that it's a major benefit to drive into the state and kill animals there. They want mine, mine, mine. Go hunt your own state if you want yours by some kind of "it's my right" theory. I'm a resident in a Western state and non resident in the others that I'd like to hunt for cheap so I'm on both sides.

That said, Wyoming's wilderness law is ridiculous but states can and should treat non residents how they want.

From a legal perspective, higher prices on non resident college tuition and hunting license and tag prices is constitutional. I have no reason to expect that to change.

 

[541hunter]

Here in Oregon I welcome the nr. ODFW funding is suffering for a multitude of reasons. To combat that, residents are seeing rising tag and license cost almost every year. I'd welcome changes to how our non resident policies to help attract a few more. Blasphemy I know. Last year I went to my spot a week later than usual and most the rigs I saw were from Idaho and Washington.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk