WY Proposed Tag Fees

MOHunter

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
218
Found this on another forum and am interested in this group's thoughts.

http://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/Departments/WGFD/pdfs/WGFDFUNDING_FEECHART0002941.pdf

I know it's the first increase in several years, but this seems really steep to me. I have absolutely no problem with the fact that we need to fund the G&F dept. However, if their costs are really increasing at this rate then there's something wrong. I would love to see how this increase, over the same time period, compares to things like food, gas, and other entertainment. I noticed recently in some research that a unit I'm looking at shows 2 helicopter surveys each year where just a few years ago they were doing one. Is that added benefit really worth the cost. These are the same kinds of questions we are having to ask of our federal government at this time. There's a cost to everything and at some point it's not reasonable.

What about the doe/cow tags. They seem outrageously cheap for them to stay the same. I'd like to see them brought up to at least half a buck/bull tag and see where that puts their budget.

Anyone know how we can weigh in on this? Does the dept. have a place for public comments?
 

T43

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2012
Messages
259
With the cost of everything going up that doesn't look that bad. I hope Idaho can figure out something similar. I had a discussion the other day with a friend of mine after the Idaho wildlife summit. He said that by not buying as many new vehicles F&G could solve a lot of problems with their funding and public image. It got me thinking and I soon realized how wrong he was. Anyone who thinks 1 simple step can fix things has never looked at the entire picture. Here is how I explained it.

A year or two ago he found what he believed to be a poached buck. He called F&G and reported it he met a warden at the trail head and showed it to him. The poacher was caught and he was satisfied with the outcome. I used that experience to explain why we need a sizeable jump in funding to support F&G. He started by reporting the incident to whom ever answered the phone at the regional office. I asked him to think about how much the cost of everything has gone up since our last fee increase. The person who answered the phone needs to be paid enough to make it worth working there, the phone she answered the power to light and heat the building she worked in and the equipment she used all has a price that has gone up. She then had to notify a warden that notification was probably done using a radio that requires equipment / repeater upkeep and licenses the price for that has gone up. The warden who has to be paid a competitive wage had to put on a uniform and duty gear. Those costs have gone up. The warden then had to get in a truck that is in good enough shape to go up and meet him that it doesn't break down. The cost of the truck, maintaining the truck the tires on the truck the fuel for the truck and the equipment for the have all gone up. The warden collected evidence that had to be sent to a lab. The lab tech needs to make a competitive wage and the cost of shipping has gone up. After completing the investigation the warden needs his dependable vehicle to get to court on time for the trial. There is a lot more to running the business of wildlife management and there is no logical argument to the do more with less oxymoron. We need to get out of the mindset that all government spending is wasteful and start paying to manage wildlife because if we don't someone with a big checkbook will and we probably won't like the results.
 

Shrek

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
7,021
Location
Jacksonville Florida
With the cost of everything going up that doesn't look that bad. I hope Idaho can figure out something similar. I had a discussion the other day with a friend of mine after the Idaho wildlife summit. He said that by not buying as many new vehicles F&G could solve a lot of problems with their funding and public image. It got me thinking and I soon realized how wrong he was. Anyone who thinks 1 simple step can fix things has never looked at the entire picture. Here is how I explained it.

A year or two ago he found what he believed to be a poached buck. He called F&G and reported it he met a warden at the trail head and showed it to him. The poacher was caught and he was satisfied with the outcome. I used that experience to explain why we need a sizeable jump in funding to support F&G. He started by reporting the incident to whom ever answered the phone at the regional office. I asked him to think about how much the cost of everything has gone up since our last fee increase. The person who answered the phone needs to be paid enough to make it worth working there, the phone she answered the power to light and heat the building she worked in and the equipment she used all has a price that has gone up. She then had to notify a warden that notification was probably done using a radio that requires equipment / repeater upkeep and licenses the price for that has gone up. The warden who has to be paid a competitive wage had to put on a uniform and duty gear. Those costs have gone up. The warden then had to get in a truck that is in good enough shape to go up and meet him that it doesn't break down. The cost of the truck, maintaining the truck the tires on the truck the fuel for the truck and the equipment for the have all gone up. The warden collected evidence that had to be sent to a lab. The lab tech needs to make a competitive wage and the cost of shipping has gone up. After completing the investigation the warden needs his dependable vehicle to get to court on time for the trial. There is a lot more to running the business of wildlife management and there is no logical argument to the do more with less oxymoron. We need to get out of the mindset that all government spending is wasteful and start paying to manage wildlife because if we don't someone with a big checkbook will and we probably won't like the results.
I can't agree more about that the anti govenment atitude is undermining our future. Poeple forget the problems that a strong wildlife dept. cured , like no deer or elk . Most poeple hunting today can't remember when market hunting and weak laws and enforcement had led to empty woods. . I will say though , we all need to guard against waste and corruption. I saw where Alabama set up a garage to rebuild older state and county vehicles. They rebuild an older vehicle for @ $6,500 vs. $35,000 for a new one. They go through them and replace all the bushings , seats , ect and rebuild the tranmissions and motors. New paint and they are good to go. Many of these depts. get caught up in the race to have the latest and best new gadgets. That is the thing I don't want to support. I want them to have what they need and be well paid not under paid and over equipped. I also want them to be dependent on license fees so they are wanting us in the woods and taking care we are happy customers.
 
OP
M

MOHunter

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
218
Facts

I'm a numbers nerd so I tend to look at this stuff. The government's own stated inflation rate since 2008 (the last price increase) has been 6.4%. That puts a $310 mule deer tag at $330 today, $352 if you go back an extra couple years to account for the fact these changes won't take effect until 2014. The $575 elk tag should be $653 in 2014 just based on inflation alone.

These increases are way higher than inflation and are due to 2 things: loss of income from reducing tag quotas and increased costs for the department. I disagree with the idea that they truly need this much money. They make it really tough on themselves to sell this idea to the public when we see them driving new trucks, the nicest offices in town, and half the staff in suits with briefcases. It at least appears that there's room for cuts.

But put all that aside and lets just agree that they do need all this increase. Anyone think there's a better way to go about it, similar to my idea of increasing doe/cow tags instead?
 

Shrek

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
7,021
Location
Jacksonville Florida
Mohunter , you are looking at the core rate of inflation. The real number is much higher as they drop out fuel and food. The fuel cost and things made from fuel like tires are killing them. There needs to be a review of staff structure and capital purchases but in the end they still need the money. There needs to be a tie into the inflation rate with a fuel surcharge that goes in automatily. That way they don't get into a bind and need a big hike all at once.
 

westside elkhunter

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
159
Location
Shelton Wa.
Like what Daveinjax said. Hopefully they review where and what they spend money. Just like most american have since the recession. I agree with they need a increase. But hopefully it isnt to bad.
 
OP
M

MOHunter

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
218
Actually Dave, that was based on the CPI-U, which does not strip out food and energy. Any way you figure it the proposed increase is FAR higher than normal cost increase would mandate.

I'm all for an automatic inflation change with a fuel surcharge adjustment. A small annual increase is much easier to swallow than these huge jumps, but then that wouldn't afford them the opportunity to jack it up higher than what the costs should be.

Does everyone think these tag increases are the best option? I'm really concerned because if they are adopted as proposed I will probably have to duck out of the WY game. I don't want to do that. Let's hear your ideas, and then tell the G&F.
 

JG358

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
1,081
Location
Colorado
What about the doe/cow tags. They seem outrageously cheap for them to stay the same. I'd like to see them brought up to at least half a buck/bull tag and see where that puts their budget.
How much you willing to pay to shoot a doe? They need the doe/cow tags sold/filled to meet management goals, thats the only reason they're cheap.

Some of the proposed tags seem a bit steep to me but I'm sure folks will be willing to pay.
 

JNDEER

Senior Member
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
1,042
Does anyone know when this will be voted on or what it appears they may be doing with the proposal?


I just started buying points for WY in hopes of going in a few years and at those new prices I would not be interested in paying that much to hunt a deer or elk.
 

tstowater

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
1,203
Location
Iowa
Getting tired of being drilled as a nonresident to fund all the western states' game and fish departments. We are all a nonresident of every state except for the state that we are a resident of. I see the only real issues are as to resident/nonresident allocation of tags and price disparities and the value that the tag cost/investment gives you. If these are generally found to be fair, then this should be fine. As a businessman, I cannot just raise prices because I am not willing to review and control costs. Government as a whole, not just Wyoming Game and Fish, need to be more accountable on how the money is spent. If we alienate the hunters as a whole, sooner or later we lose their support with money and hunter base. We need more hunters with reasonable access to hunting opportunities, not less, and if these fee increases will provide those opportunities, then the increases should be implemented, if not, then there needs to another justification.
 

Shrek

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
7,021
Location
Jacksonville Florida
One solution to their problem is to realocate their tags to nonresidents. If they took 50% of their resident tags in prime areas and made them nonresident tags it would go a long way toward fixinh their problems. Maybe 85% or more of all goat and sheep tags. Realocate unwanted nonresident tags in less prime areas to resident tags. If you fund your department from tag money then you should alocate tags to the most money. Residents should be allowed to apply as nonresidents if they pay nonresident fees. Never will happen 'cause residents get to vote.
 

wyelkhunter

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
235
Location
Kinnear, WY
and residents should get preferential treatment on tags and more tags. The tag prices will keep going up until non-residents quit buying tags. As of now that isn't even close to a problem.
 
OP
M

MOHunter

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
218
How much you willing to pay to shoot a doe? They need the doe/cow tags sold/filled to meet management goals, thats the only reason they're cheap.
Apparently a lot of guys are willing to pay far more. I'm just saying that compared to other state WY is cheap. CO has the best deer herd in the west, and their non-res. doe tag costs the same as a buck. They're obviously selling the tags and managing the herd.
 

sreekers

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
1,254
Location
Wyoming
Wyoming already is more liberal than most states in the number of non resident tags we give out. We cut some last year because of a bad winter kill on the deer herd in the northwest. Other than that we have a lot of tags that go elsewhere.
 

landont20

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
41
Location
Little Rock, AR
Guys, I'm a little surprised at some of the reactions to this. This website is devoted to public hunting and keeping this from becoming a rich man's game. a $200+ jump in tag prices is ridiculous. Inflation shouldn't even be in the conversation, because at what they are proposing, it would be equal to almost a 30% inflation rate! I don't care if you go 10 years back. Unacceptable. As far as doe/cow tags are concerned, MOHunter has a good point that Colorado doesn't have reduced tag prices. So, raising those prices some and even the buck/bull prices A LITTLE makes more sense to me. But, saying "folks would be willing to pay" is silly in my book. You guys must be running around with deep pockets, because I make a darn good living and that is getting too steep for me. I understand that we need to fund the G&F, but at what point do we come to the realization that not everything needs to be funded? We have to draw the line somewhere as to what is considered "necessary." If this takes place you can bet I will probably be burning my points and looking elsewhere. Let the research begin!
 

HOT ROD

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
748
Location
Casper Wy
I am a non res of wyoming. And I have 2 elk and 2 deer points.Never hunted Wyoming. As a group of 6 off us. We have talked about bumping our points. And stay hunting in Colorado. I dont under stand why the high cost of any lisence in the west. U can get an out of state lisences here in Pa. For the fraction of the cost. And just about any eastern state. Are Ur game & fish overly paid. Do they get a new 4wd every other year? And why sock it to us none residents. Turning hunting in to a rich mans game... U can even hunt Nebraska, SD ND for a lot less.
 

Ridgerunner

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
389
Wyoming has some good hunting but looking at some of these prices it's getting out of control.
 

Lukem

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2012
Messages
627
Location
Nebraska
Just another step, like the upping preference point costs, that will get people out of WY. Looks like I'll have to cash in elk, deer and pronghorn and draw in 2013. I'd already planned on dropping out of moose with the sheer cost of tags and points. Could go to AK on that bill. On the bright side, it'll limit the # of people applying and reduce the competition for those that stay in the game in WY, and make better draw odds. I'll stick the sheep tag out, that's a bucket-lister, but after next year, I'll be done with WY.
 
Top