Wyoming House committee says no to license fee hike

squeekieslayer

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
1,240
Location
Great Falls, MT
The fact is that this is not as good as you think. They also killed the budget for wgf. I have a good friend that works for them amd said the loss was equal to losing 150 jobs. They are likely just going to have to cut funding to projects such as habitat restoration, hunter management, and research. So its great that you won't have to pay a bit more for licenses..... but let's just hope Wyoming can remain a place that you want to buy a license for in the first place. Every decision has consequenses for both sides.
 

tstowater

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
1,203
Location
Iowa
The fact is that this is not as good as you think. They also killed the budget for wgf. I have a good friend that works for them amd said the loss was equal to losing 150 jobs. They are likely just going to have to cut funding to projects such as habitat restoration, hunter management, and research. So its great that you won't have to pay a bit more for licenses..... but let's just hope Wyoming can remain a place that you want to buy a license for in the first place. Every decision has consequenses for both sides.


You can't keep jabbing the nonresidents in the eye with fees (not just referring to WY). The residents are going to pay more of the of freight. No different than any other state as you want to feel like you are getting treated fairly when you apply and that the fees and tags are reasonable. I would generally consider Wyoming to be reasonable with its nonresident allocation unlike some other states (to remain nameless), but the question will be how long are hunters going to eat high dollar PP unless you see that there is value. Wyoming's g & f budget issues are representative of most western states. Like was said earlier, fees are a double edge sword. All you need to do is look at the discussion on the other thread about where to apply.
 

tstowater

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
1,203
Location
Iowa
The irony of the whole thing is no different than many of the "47%'ers" that voted for Obama. No one wants to feel pain and the state legislatures find it quite easy to increase nonresident fees (as they are not represented) instead of resident fees. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT A RICH MAN'S SPORT, KEEP RAISING THE NONRESIDENT HUNTING COSTS. THE NONRESIDENTS WILL EITHER ABANDON YOUR STATE (NOT JUST WYOMING) OR HIRE GUIDES AND THEIR SUCCESS RATE WILL GO UP AND THE RESIDENTS WILL BE JEALOUS. IF WE KEEP INCREASING FEES ON NONRESIDENTS, WE WILL LOSE OUR HUNTER BASE AND THEIR FINANCIAL AND VOTING SUPPORT.

Seriously people, same shit, different state. This is not just directed at Wyoming. Iowa is a perfect example. We have some very good whitetail hunting, supposedly. We limit the number of nonresidents that can hunt, but give OTC tags to all residents. Supposedly, the Iowa DNR (game and fish people) need more money so why not increase the nonresident fees as there is plenty of demand or just increase the number of nonresident tags. Guess which one would have a better chance of being accepted by the residents.

I thinking that all the states need to re-evaluate how their game and fish/wildlife departments are being funded and maybe start over. Also consider that many taxpayers, in particular the ones paying taxes, are not real keen on spending money on g&f budgets and would view much of the spending as not needed. Big picture, people!!!!
 

squeekieslayer

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
1,240
Location
Great Falls, MT
You can't keep jabbing the nonresidents in the eye with fees (not just referring to WY). The residents are going to pay more of the of freight. No different than any other state as you want to feel like you are getting treated fairly when you apply and that the fees and tags are reasonable. I would generally consider Wyoming to be reasonable with its nonresident allocation unlike some other states (to remain nameless), but the question will be how long are hunters going to eat high dollar PP unless you see that there is value. Wyoming's g & f budget issues are representative of most western states. Like was said earlier, fees are a double edge sword. All you need to do is look at the discussion on the other thread about where to apply.

I wasnt saying that "jabbing" any crybaby nonresidents in the eye was a good idea, I simply said that the facts are that because that bill didnt pass, many people will possibly lose jobs and the hunting in the state will suffer. I am NOT a wyoming resident any longer and I do not feel that this is a good way to get things done. Simply stating a fact.
 

landont20

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
41
Location
Little Rock, AR
Good comment tstowater.....It is unfortunate that people may lose their job. But, if we are speaking "fact of the matter" the more government employees, the less likely we get spending under control (basically the root of all of our problems). I think EVERY government sector is a little fat with employees if you ask me. As far as NR costs, raising cow/doe tags and resident prices makes more sense to me than raising buck/bull prices just on NR. Hopefully they will take a much closer look this before making any drastic decisions. Glad to hear they aren't raising prices....yet!
 

squeekieslayer

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
1,240
Location
Great Falls, MT
Good comment tstowater.....It is unfortunate that people may lose their job. But, if we are speaking "fact of the matter" the more government employees, the less likely we get spending under control (basically the root of all of our problems). I think EVERY government sector is a little fat with employees if you ask me. As far as NR costs, raising cow/doe tags and resident prices makes more sense to me than raising buck/bull prices just on NR. Hopefully they will take a much closer look this before making any drastic decisions. Glad to hear they aren't raising prices....yet!

you're right.... lets leave hunting and access to the private sector and see how it gets managed. These budgets aren't just about losing jobs... they are about losing things like hunter management areas, habitat studies, prosecution of tresspassers.... all things that allow the NR a chance to hunt on public land when they do get a tag. I DO NOT feel that gouging the NR is the way to go, the other thread on this same topic has many good ideas being talked about.

Face it, to keep hunting opportunities for ANYONE intact for years to come without it becoming a "rich mans sport," everyone is going to have to do their share to help out. Hunting, especially as a nonresident, is a privilege, not a right... we bitch and moan too much and push the burden on someone else and we will lose that privilege.

It is very easy for NR to whine about prices when it is not affecting their state's budget. The residents have more at stake than any NR with PP built up. For what its worth.... Wyoming is one of the very few state in the BLACK.... they are obviously doing something right at the budget level.
 

wapitibob

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
3,646
Location
Bend Oregon
If you guys think you won't be paying more money as a NR you have your head in the sand. The dept is millions short and will get their money, and we'll be the ones paying. It will be license fees, app fees, tag fees, point fees, a cpl hundred auction/raffle tags, or some convoluted combination of the above, but they'll get the money they need. Period.
The proposed fees were the easiest, cleanest way to get the job done.
 

tstowater

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
1,203
Location
Iowa
If you guys think you won't be paying more money as a NR you have your head in the sand. The dept is millions short and will get their money, and we'll be the ones paying. It will be license fees, app fees, tag fees, point fees, a cpl hundred auction/raffle tags, or some convoluted combination of the above, but they'll get the money they need. Period.
The proposed fees were the easiest, cleanest way to get the job done.


Still begs the question of why the shortage? I don't know the answer, but that is why I said earlier that the budget and department needs to be reviewed. Also, don't assume that because I say that, that I am saying that we should axe positions. I'm saying that we need accountability, especially if we want the general tax revenue to pay some of the expenses (personally, I think that that should be the case, but we can't have empire building for the sake of empire building). I also said that the fee structure needs to be fair, not unreasonably supported by the unrepresented non-residents. Again, this is not directly just at Wyoming. Iowa, where I live, is just as guilty.

Maybe, what I'm saying is that perceived "quick fixes" may not solve the problem in the long run and may actually make it worse.

Now, before you take a shot at this, think about the big picture and you may have a better chance of understanding what I have said.
 

crumy

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2012
Messages
562
Location
Laramie, WY
I am a WY reside now after moving here form Ohio. I do think the Non-Res fees are high but at the same time you have to look at potential revenue stream. There is an estimated 544,000 in the state of WY. That is smaller than some suburbs back east. Not everyone hunts, so not everyone of the 544,000 provides revenue. And before you go, well raise taxes, well we don't have state taxes and I don't thinking taxing all residents so a few residents and non-res can hunt with lower fees is a good idea.

We all like to hunt an we are all have a lot of personal sweat equity tied into it. So before this gets into a fevered pitch please take a look at the other forum that was discussed. I will post a link below. But the essence is, that there is a solution to that would provide approximately a 30% increase for investment revenue, a 65% increase in actual tag revenue, and a 30% increase in processing fees collected. All this while using very conservative numbers regarding the number of permits and applicants. This is for Wyoming. This would impact resident and non-resident.

As a resident I have cheaper tags, but I promise you I have close to 1,000 in play right now with the game and fish because I am buying tags for 3 people and one of them gets discounted rates because he is a minor. I don't want to see fees go up any more than you. But I also know that if we don't do something, there will be no reason to hunt because public access will be gone, outfitters will step in and pay the ranchers for exclusive rights. You will think that a 7,000 guided elk hunt is cheap after that happens.

Here is the post I that has been mentioned:

http://www.rokslide.com/forums/showthread.php?5070-Wyoming-price-increase
 

tstowater

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
1,203
Location
Iowa
Crumy, please help me understand. Is one of your main concerns public access to either private property or across private property and if funding is cut short, then this will likely be eliminated and privatized? Doesn't Idaho have a raffle program that provides funding for these kind of expenses? Other states have other ways of funding these worthwhile projects. Just a thought.

I want to keep hunting affordable to the majority, not just the wealthy. Personally, the proposed fee increase is only an irritant, but won't stop me. The fee increases may, however, stop others and we lose more of the hunter base that we really can't afford to lose.

This shouldn't be a battle between the residents and non-residents anywhere as we are all non-residents except in the state we live in. There are plenty of people with money for whom the cost of tags is really not a deterrent, but tag cost could be a deterrent for a lot of hunters or prospective hunters.
 

crumy

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2012
Messages
562
Location
Laramie, WY
I guess my concern is not really the public access, it is the thought of raising fees vs the budget shortfall. Maybe I am giving the WY Legislatures a little too much credit but I am guessing that if they have less money they will make cuts. You can only cut so many human resources before you have to look elsewhere. IMHO, the next logical would be access, and then comes game management. So it is more of a result than my direct concern.

It is no secret that the economy is hurting everyone and if we are fortunate enough to still have discretionary income to spend on fuel, license, ammo, and hunting then I hate to see that financial burden passed along until none of us can do it.

(Ok.. this will sound sappy but it is why I hunt) I took my son elk hunting for the first time in his life and he shot a 6x6 at the age of 13. The look of joy on his face and the feeling of accomplishment that he and I had was priceless. My wife shot a spike elk this year on her second year hunting. Same thing. I think she skipped across the mountain to where her elk was. I would never harvest another animal in my life if I could do that for him and her over and over. And just as as side note, that means my family has two bulls and I have 4 cow elk in the last 4 years. I am not bitter. LoL I just want to ensure that others, res and non-res can have that experience.

I don't care about your state of origin; we are sportsman/hunters/outdoorsman whatever you want to call yourself. We need to make sure people have the opportunity.

Not to be political but.. if we keep raising fees without changing something and you end up like our current economy. That is how I came up with my idea on the other forum. It doesn’t harm the rifle hunters, it benefits the archery hunters by giving a tag just for them. It limits the number of scouting archery hunters (guys carrying a bow just in case but are really just checking things out for rifle season) Some, like me would apply for archery and rifle tags. That is double fees. But I would have a chance and two limited tags. So in a way it does raise fees without increasing hunters but I would be willing to do that instead of paying more for just one tag.

Game management is a business. Wyoming (and any other state) has a commodity and they need to market it, manage it, and sale it at a reasonable price. Otherwise nobody will buy it.
 

crumy

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2012
Messages
562
Location
Laramie, WY
I left off one thing. I do think that a "super tag" for Wyoming would help. It helped AZ (at least that is what I heard) .
 

huntwest

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
106
Location
ND
I guess I don't know the financial situation of wyoming, but why is only 5% of your general fund used to support the game and fish? I would think that is an unfair portion for all the tax revenue brought in from hunting and fishing.

I do like crumy's idea on the other forum about making a type 1 and a type9 tag for the limited draw units. I hope more people are taking their idea's to their elected officials.
 

crumy

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2012
Messages
562
Location
Laramie, WY
I am not sure but from talking to people, the majority of the Game and Fish budget comes from the fees and tag applications. that is why we pay up front and they keep the money for investment for a while. I guess they go to vegas and bet on red.



I guess I don't know the financial situation of wyoming, but why is only 5% of your general fund used to support the game and fish? I would think that is an unfair portion for all the tax revenue brought in from hunting and fishing.

I do like crumy's idea on the other forum about making a type 1 and a type9 tag for the limited draw units. I hope more people are taking their idea's to their elected officials.
 

landont20

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
41
Location
Little Rock, AR
I guess my biggest concern when talking about cuts and what is needed for game management, habitat studies, etc...is at what point is enough enough? How much do you really NEED to do that job when it comes to amenities? How brand new of a truck do you need and how many fly overs a year are required (those aren't the only things, just examples). We talk about needing more revenue, just like Washington is talking about, when really the problem is spending. I don't want people to lose their job, but a lot of revenue can be found by cutting the "fat" on unnecessary expenditures. I'm just think EVERY government agency, with the state of the economy, to look at what is a need versus a want...I do it in my house every day. It's just hard to do without once we get used to the surplus. The game and fish dept is no different.
 
Top