Wyoming Nonresident Proposed Changes

[Chad E]

As a resident of Wyoming with plans and hopes to hunt other states I don't see the issue. If less NR hunters means better herd numbers I'm all for it.

I've seen the difference in quality of deer between our limited quota unit and a general unit/area and it's a big difference. So if less tags in our easy to draw NR regions means a better quality hunt for everyone I'm all for it.


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

This isn't about better herd numbers or quantity of deer it's about tag distribution.

 

[coloyooper]

Catch yourself up on my posts. By accessing, I mean hunting, and I shouldn't have to explain. This is NOT an accessing public lands forum, this is a hunting forum.

Lol, I am actually catching myself up right now. Had this thread pulled up from yesterday so it wasn't until after I posted that the additional pages of comments refreshed.

 

[BuzzH]

I'm well aware of states rights with regards to federal laws, andnlaws can be changed. You seem to miss the importance as others have stated. Without more people who support hunting, there are less voices on the national stage. How about the common Joe in Indiana who hunts in WY or ID? How about the people from MD, FL, IL, or MN? All of those voices are needed as sportsman when it comes to protecting hunting rights. Short mindedness of me me me...I need a 4th sheep tag, screw NR doesn't help anyone but yourself.If we don't get more involved, and keep access to affordable hunting those Joe schmoes won't give a damn when certain politians come for "your"rights as a R. WY has no power nationally and is mostly forgotten by the majority of people in this country.

Right, that's why Senator Barrasso and Congressman Cheney are in very high leadership roles in the House and Senate...because Wyoming has no national influence.

Carry on...

 

[Steve O]

There are a lot of entitles people on this thread trying to push a rope. In 2004 and 2005 USO Outfitters and a couple of their billionaire clients sued the state of Arizona challenging their 10% cap. As a result I drew a great elk tag and mule deer tag because for those two seasons the NR cap was lifted and I am eternally grateful.

They lost big time.

You and your complaints are not going to change it if the big money backed lawsuit couldn’t. Work with what you are given and try to find a productive way to improve things.

 

[Rich M]

Why isnt the success rate higher than it is for residents now then? I read only 12% of the entire state even buys a big game license as it is. But, its ludicrous to even suggest than wyoming would go to 100% resident only hunting just because "they feel like it".

You really need to let this go.

 

[BuzzH]

yes understood, but if statute suddenly says "90% of big game tags need to go to residents" would the commission not feel compelled to change that allocation, under the same authority, in order to comply with the law.

No, they wouldn't. I've heard it over and over and over again, by the commission at numerous meetings, that they regulate with legislative intent in mind. There is no mention or intent for the commission to reduce the 7250 cap as defined in sf94.

After Jeff and I looked at sf94 again, the language could most certainly be tightened up by simply adding 90% of LQ licenses.

 

[Thomas11]

There are a lot of entitles people on this thread trying to push a rope. In 2004 and 2005 USO Outfitters and a couple of their billionaire clients sued the state of Arizona challenging their 10% cap. As a result I drew a great elk tag and mule deer tag because for those two seasons the NR cap was lifted and I am eternally grateful.

They lost big time.

You and your complaints are not going to change it if the big money backed lawsuit couldn’t. Work with what you are given and try to find a productive way to improve things.

I forgot about that case but that would for sure be a big precedent

 

[BuzzH]

I forgot about that case but that would for sure be a big precedent

That case is what brought about S. 339...Reaffirming States Rights to manage game as they see fit. It also nullified the argument used by USO regarding the commerce clause...


(b) Construction of Congressional Silence.--Silence on the part of
Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of
Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the
``commerce clause'') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State
or Indian tribe.

 

[MallardSX2]

Wow. This thread escalated quickly. Lot of reading here.

 

[coues craze]

I’ve seen @BuzzH cow hunting stories.... pretty sure he could fill those 9k elk tags... but I think anyone going on and on about the 100-0 allocation possibility is missing the point entirely.

 

[prm]

Lots to consider for certain. It seems the bill is focused entirely on shifting tags to residents. Is it that simple, or is there another agenda? Is it hard for residents to get a desirable elk tag in WY? I don’t know.

Although I grew up in a western elk hunting state, I’m currently a non-resident for the purposes of elk or mule deer hunting. This bill bothers me on a couple accounts:

First is simply the cost. I was was starting to pause and think about elk hunting when tags went over $600. By the time you factor in travel an elk hunt is a meaningful chunk of coin. It would have been especially difficult when my kids were younger and I bought multiple tags in a given year. I can imagine many a blue collar guys having to really think about this or even bow out. That’s unfortunate. There is a supply vs. demand challenge and I’d prefer that not be addressed with pricing.
I am a big proponent of public lands. I understand game management is by state, but to a non-resident hunter, the public lands are effectively intertwined with game. Bills like this chip away at my reasons for actively supporting public lands. While I do drive out west twice a year to hunt big game, I doubt I’d do the same to hike around.

For now it’s just a bill and I need to read more thoroughly. My initial feeling as a hunter is not positive.

 

[LostArra]

Once Buzz said the bill is going nowhere I felt some relief and I tuned out of the public land squabbles.
I'll still send an email to a Wyoming legislator just to keep his Trash folder full.
90/10 is coming sometime and I'll deal with it when it happens if I'm still kicking.

Someone mentioned changes in Colorado. They need it.

 

[KurtR]

Once Buzz said the bill is going nowhere I felt some relief and I tuned out of the public land squabbles.
I'll still send an email to a Wyoming legislator just to keep his Trash folder full.
90/10 is coming sometime and I'll deal with it when it happens if I'm still kicking.

Someone mentioned changes in Colorado. They need it.

Kinda where i am to this is a bunch of arguing about nothing. The bill is dead not making it out would have thought it would be all unicorn farts and rainbows.

 

[prm]

It may die, but it’s still enough of an idea to become a bill. Its worth understanding in detail.

 

[805Bowhunter]

I echo the sentiment of "relief" when someone like Buzz says its going nowhere. I think there are some serious lessons to be learned here however as obviously with the amount of response in the past 24 hours, this bill strikes a chord. Here are some takeaways:

1) Many of us have hunted elk every single year for a really long time. Wyoming has been a great part of that plan because many of us hunt the general tag (great hunt) every 1-3 years. Changing Wyoming makes us realize that we have something really good there. Yes we all bitch about the wilderness rule, but does it change our applications to hunt there?...not really. Apps are at record numbers to hunt Wy regardless of said rule in addition to increases in tag fees, etc. The response just on this forum alone on this bill underscores how much people love wy (regardless of what they say on a message board).

2) All western states are changing tag allocations/NR #'s at an incredible speed. What we have grown to rely on as hunters (drawing a tag we are familiar with every year) is changing quickly and, if you're anything like me, change is uncomfortable, especially when it comes to hunting. Regardless of what happens in Wyoming, we are going to need to think of hunting differently, especially when it comes to in-demand species and tags. I believe that in 5 years Colorado, MT, Wy, and ID will all look very very different than they do now. The majority of those changes are going to put on NR, which the state has every right to do.

3) Hunting elk every single year, for a lot of us, may go away or change drastically as we know it. 10 years from now we may be lucky to draw a cow tag. Who knows. I just know that elk hunting and western hunting in general, is more popular than ever before and states are looking at ways to manage the resource as well as turn a profit.

4) Many of us can do a crap-ton more to be involved in the actual policies and legislative bodies that make these changes. I teach high school government and shared some research with my students surrounding American political involvement vs pocketbook spending. The basics of the research (out of Stanford's Hoover Institute) is that Americans like to write checks to support causes, but do very little in terms of "on the ground activism." This is very true with hunting. Many of us belong to _______ Foundation, BHA, TCRP, RMEF, and happily pay our dues to support said cause. Thats great....kinda. What is more important is that we are 1) actually educated on issues going on (not relying on forum rumors/hearsay bs), 2) Actively participate in the process. This means actually showing up to meetings, speaking at meetings, making phone calls, sending emails etc. I know a lot of us do this fairly regularly, but we simply just need to do more.

There is a lot of entitlement in hunting and it comes out when we have legislation that looks like this. Instead of coming at this problem with an "I deserve to hunt ______ state because I'm me" attitude...come at it from "I love this resource and am trying to find ways to help ensure it for future generations" attitude. I think if more hunters said, "what can I do to help the problem" as opposed to "just hurry up and give me my tag", our whole community would be a lot better off.

 

[204guy]

Is reading comprehension something that is tested in schools these days? Some guys on this thread wouldn't pass.

Also some guys really need to check their "feelings" at the door. It doesnt matter if you feel nr aren't being treated fair, there's law and case law that lay these things out pretty clearly.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[BrentH]

It is regulation but the authority is granted to the commission via statute...clear as mud?

So the statute would give the commission the authority to change that regulation/number, correct? And if the proposed bill were to pass, they would be required to change that number to only be 10% of the total licenses issued would they not?

Edit: Sorry, I replied before reading the remaining replies. If it is truly about the LQ tags only, then it certainly has poor wording.

 

[hflier]

Effective date? Many have already applied for hunts!

 

[jolmaco]

In general terms, there will be NO significant loss of D, E, A tags for NR's in regard to 90-10 split.

It is a fact that in Statute, NR's are assured 7,250 full price elk tags...meaning the 6% decrease in LQ tags to NR's would be made up for with more general tags. So, that's a wash. The same with LQ cow/calf tags, what residents don't draw right now, are headed to the leftover draw, so NR's wouldn't see any significant decrease there.

A vast majority of the NR deer tags are region wide tags, those are 100% going to NR's. There will be a decrease in the remaining LQ deer tags to NR's, no question of that, you're losing 10% of those tags and no way to off-set unless areas are undersubscribed by Residents (those fall to the NR initial draw).

Pronghorn is going to see a shift. No question the harder to draw areas would be tougher for NR's to draw, you're losing 10% of your quota. But, there will also be tags available in mid-tier units where Residents wont now draw tags due to the 10% increase in Resident tags being drawn in different unit. Currently, NR's draw more than 50% of the pronghorn tags in Wyoming, that wont change with a 90-10 split. Its going to be more of a shift in where NR tags are more available, than a loss in total NR pronghorn tags.

Sheep, moose, goat, bison...you're again flat losing those tags by 10-15% depending on the species.

Where this bill sucks, and why it will fail, is the 30% outfitter allocation. The 90-10 split will shift things more than reduce NR opportunity at tags. But, the 30% allocation to outfitters will be the biggest blow to NR's.

So, I first heard of this bill about 3-4 months ago and talked to the guy that is pushing it. In the conversation myself and a friend had with him, we told him flat out to stick with the 90-10 split. We also told him that if he was at all serious that the bill had to be revenue neutral to the GF budget. Our recommendation was to increase Resident fees to offset any potential revenue loss going to 90-10. Further, he brought up the outfitter allocation, and we told him flat out that would likely kill his idea and the legislation. Residents are not keen on giving another hand-out to outfitters and IMO, sets a pretty dangerous precedent.

That brings us to a meeting a few weeks back that a bunch of groups had with the GF. In that discussion, the WOGA brought up this bill and asked the groups in attendance to oppose it. They also said that it was likely to have an outfitter set aside (again they said they oppose that).

But, all that being said, the outfitters are currently being pretty quiet and are taking some heat over it right now. For a group that said they don't support this bill, they sure haven't gone out of their way to come out opposing it yet either.

If I had to venture a guess, Jeff Smith and Sy Gillaland are probably crunching numbers and seeing if there is an over-all benefit to outfitters. I would also guess that there are some outfitters that would support this big-time and some that would oppose it big-time.

I'll be in full opposition mode, strictly over the fact that once again, NR's are taking it on the chin by having to pay for something that largely benefits Residents. My opinion, if Residents want a 90-10 split, than Residents should have to pay more for to make up the difference. Further, I oppose the outfitter set-aside no matter where its proposed, in any state. The draw should be open to ALL non residents and just because someone has the cash to throw around, they shouldn't get better odds by buying/applying/booking through an outfitter.

This bill is going nowhere, its a budget session and needs 2/3 vote to pass. I don't see it coming out of committee and IME, even with amendments, it will die. The quickest way to see a bill fail in committee is to start making a bunch of amendments. The session is only 24 days long and they don't have the time to go back and forth with the amendments. Plus, with revenue issues in Wyoming over-all, this is not a high priority bill in a budget session.

But, make no mistake that 90-10 is not going away. Wyoming Residents are feeling the pinch when they apply in surrounding states and therefor want more opportunity at tags here.

There is a right way to get a 90-10 bill passed...and this isn't it.

The way I read it from Go Hunt is that is currently there is a 80 20 split and residents can get general tags otc. So are you saying that if it goes to 90 10 split my chances of drawing a general wont decrease by 50%. If it were to pass I would pay around 1200 for a general tag and 6 points. As it is I will pay 950 for a general tag and 3 points. If it is about herd numbers maybe they should get rid of crossbows and do separate seasons for the tags. If Wyoming only wants residents to hunt there and a few pay to play hunters then RMEF and any other organizations should invest in states that are more friendly to all hunters.

 

[Shupe88]

This turned into a “who’s dick is bigger” thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk