Wyoming proposal to slash Non-resident hunters

Steve O

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
1,856
Location
Michigan
All you guys with the great idea of taking the federal land and making it state land. Think about this. State sells land to pay bills or because they get a good offer. Private landowner says “No Trespassing” or pay this massive fee...ask all the European hunters how that works; oh that’s right, you don’t know any because it can only be done by the elite on “estates”. TERRIBLE idea.
 

Billinsd

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
1,780
All you guys with the great idea of taking the federal land and making it state land. Think about this. State sells land to pay bills or because they get a good offer. Private landowner says “No Trespassing” or pay this massive fee...ask all the European hunters how that works; oh that’s right, you don’t know any because it can only be done by the elite on “estates”. TERRIBLE idea.
It's what the founders envisioned and I believe better for the country. Yes, it could be horrible for hunters. A much better example than Europe, LOL, is Texas and the US east of the Mississippi. LOL That's would it would be like. Europe?! LOL!!
 
Last edited:

MtnW

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Messages
63
Maybe you should do some research on why it is done the way it is.

The Federal government can’t even manage the powers they are explicitly given in the Constitution and it’s amendments and it ******* tells them how to manage those powers. Do you honestly think that them managing wildlife would be better?
I agree with you a lot about what you are saying. I have lived in CO,MT,AZ and NV. I have done a fair amount of volunteer work with the COPW and their Rocky Mtn Bighorn sheep propagation programs. I have known some very dedicated BLM biologists and field supervisors. I have been in the mountains on Federal land. My point is not really who manages the game, I agree with you that state management is best. I just have strongly felt that Federal land should allow NR hunters a better representation percentage of tags like the gentleman mentioned, 70/30 , 65/35, 60/40 NOT 90/10 and again this would be for only Federal lands.
 

Billinsd

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
1,780
Example for elk
Hypothetical hunt area has quota of 100 Type 1 tags:
Currently the residents get 84 in random draw, non- residents get 16 divided among random, preference point and Special draws.

Proposed: residents get 90, non- residents get 10. No Special Draw.

Buzz's " Not much" is actually a 37% reduction in the number of non resident tags for that hunt code. 16 to 10.


I'm open to math corrections.


Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
I thought it was 80 to 20? Where do you get 84 and 16?
 

MtnW

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Messages
63
On a funnier point. Regarding WY residents and the hardships they endure living in their magnificent state and thus are entitled to their own private hunting grounds.
I have a couple of very good friends that are WY natives. If you forced them to move out of WY say to Denver they would be dead in six months either by alcoholism or suicide.
 

Caleb Miller

Junior Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
13
Location
Ohio
as a nonresident in every western state (I'm from Ohio) tags are getting more expensive and harder to draw I hate to see this stuff happen but thats why i play every draw i can afford to, there are still lots of opportunities out there
 

TBO_Jason

Junior Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
15
Location
TN
Been hunting WY for 20 years. Never hired a guide. I saw 90/10 and that was enough for me to react. A concerned non-resident might send something like this...
----------
To the Honorable members of the Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife & Cultural Resources Committee

Dear Chairwoman Ellis, and Sens. Gierau, Salazar, Landen, Schuler

I strongly urge you to oppose SF0103.

I am not a constituent, but as a non-resident hunter, I am affected by the proposed legislation, and it is in my interest that it does not pass. For over twenty years, I, along with several hunting companions, have made a significant financial investment to hunt in Wyoming, and this legislation will have an impact on both our continued investment and future plans. I encourage you to honor our 20+ year commitment.

Stopping this legislation is highly likely to be in the long-term, best interest of WY residents, as well. Non-resident hunters have a significant, positive economic impact on many Wyoming residents. My small hunting group, not counting the many others we have influenced over the years, has spent well over $100,000.00---mostly to local mom-and-pops. Consider the impacts of just a few ways we've spent our money:

Gas, tobacco, and alcohol (with additional sin tax) all over the state; hotels in Buffalo; car rentals in Sheridan; restaurants in Lander; grocery stores in Gillette; gift shops in Douglas (everyone wants a jackelope); a tire and auto shop in Riverton; house rental in Thermopolis (plus a haul from the local distillery); taxidermists in Laramie; meat processors in Casper; private campgrounds near Rock Springs; laundromats in Cheyenne; coffee shops in Jackson; shower fees (yes, they exist) near Cody; trespass fees to a rancher near Rawlins; cash/tip to the lady with a packing horse near our favorite brewery in Ten Sleep; medical clinic/pharmacy in Worland; bait & tackle shops; ammo and hunting clothes/gear stores; state and local raffles/fundraisers/donations; hunting licenses; fishing licenses; and even a speeding ticket (regretfully); among many other examples.

Additionally, I encourage you to recognize that the impacts go beyond simply the number of licenses. For example, some of my friends have also vacationed with family in Wyoming, solely as a result of exposure from hunting. Also, consider the loss of goodwill within the hunting community. In addition to negative word-of-mouth, popular hunting publications might discourage readers from even applying due to the low odds of drawing a tag. Already, non-resident opportunities are limited due to “point creep" and legislation that proposes to reduce the number of licenses gives good reason for both current and prospective new hunters to favor spending their resources elsewhere.

Ultimately, the proposed legislation will have a financially detrimental impact to me, my friends, fellow hunters, and many Wyoming residents. I urge you to prevent that from happening.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

---------------------
Probably won't make a difference, but I've got skin in the game.
 

CorbLand

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
1,980
I agree with you a lot about what you are saying. I have lived in CO,MT,AZ and NV. I have done a fair amount of volunteer work with the COPW and their Rocky Mtn Bighorn sheep propagation programs. I have known some very dedicated BLM biologists and field supervisors. I have been in the mountains on Federal land. My point is not really who manages the game, I agree with you that state management is best. I just have strongly felt that Federal land should allow NR hunters a better representation percentage of tags like the gentleman mentioned, 70/30 , 65/35, 60/40 NOT 90/10 and again this would be for only Federal lands.
That’s not state management then. So you can’t say that you agree with state management then say that you think the Federal Government should tell states how to manage wildlife.

The bottom line of it is this. Management of wildlife was left up to the States. Animals are held in trust by the State for the residents of that State.

Does it suck for NR? Yes but I can promise you that the opportunity that you do have to hunt is because of state management.
 

MtnW

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Messages
63
That’s not state management then. So you can’t say that you agree with state management then say that you think the Federal Government should tell states how to manage wildlife.

The bottom line of it is this. Management of wildlife was left up to the States. Animals are held in trust by the State for the residents of that State.

You are missing the point. Change is not easy but possible. Just because it is like that now, changes can be made. That change can be made to how the Federal lands are managed in regards to Resident / NonResident quotas. The case being all US citizens pay Federal Taxes and ultimately the US citizens own these Federal lands.
 

come2elmo

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2018
Messages
266
Location
South Texas
Interesting take. I somewhat agree. I'm not sure that it even needs to be taken so far it could be as simple as setting resident and nonresident tag percentage, and setting A ratio for resident to nr fees.


For example 75/25 resident to non resident tag split and non resident license fees can be up to but not exceed 10 times the resident license fee.
I will probably get the ban hammer for this one but given that some residents and their friends are looking at getting their full allotment of tags cause well they can and screw you neighbor because I want mine. You go find your own back county hunting and anglin...just not in my back country because we don't own you nothin.

I would take it a step further and see about setting a $500.00 federal "big game hunting impact fee" per species specifically for residents of states that limit non resident tags to a X% and/or have a difference of X% in cost between res and non-res tags. Oh yea almost forgot. The fee would be $1000 if you hunt wilderness cause well it needs to be kept pristine and since non-residents can't hunt it alone there must be something VERY, VERY magical about it that can only be protected by money and the right letters on your drivers license. This seems fair really. It is public land and we all own the same amount of it lock stock and barrel. Some use it more then others and in order to fill all those tags one would have to drive all over the place and damage miles and miles of blm/forest service roads, spew untold metric tons of carbon into the air. Don't forget CWD and all the rona you all will no doubt spread around the forest...pay to play is the name of the game now. The list of other reasons to support this bill would just grow and grow as more and more non-western senators and reps sponsor the bill, I mean really other then Yellowstone and Jackson Hole most of it gets flown over anyway so why not vote yes. Ok there's Denver but their weed isn't as good as the stuff from Cali! I bet we could hang all sorts of other goodies on it too because we are projecting public land!!! All HAIL PUBLIC LAND! Don't forget all the this or that rights groups who would love jump up and support the bill. Could probably get ol Ted Cruz to sponsor it. He needs a win after his trip to the beach. Most of the dems would vote for it cause who doesn't like a new tax that hurts gun owners/hunters and saves the whales, err wolves. All the hikers, mtn bikers, offroaders, and bird watchers wouldnt give a rip as it doesn't mess with them in the least as they aren't "taking" any animals. Might even mean they get to see more critters for the gram. Anglers would scowl some thinking this might apply to them some day but really the number of them that actually keep and eat fish nowadays is pretty low so they aren't "taking" either. Gram-it and let it go is more humane anyway. No problems from them. Since lots of us non-res have a tinkers chance in hell of getting a tag in the mountains anymore we really don't have a reason to call our senators or reps to demand they vote against it. Some would, but not enough. No doubt the residents will howl and complain about how this isn't how the north american model works..or is it the <insert western state here> model now? Hard to stand beside a bunch of folks that feel when it comes to hunting the rest of North America can go somewhere else if they dont like it. I for one took all the money the state of x & x & x would have gotten from me and got a lease on a private place closer to home. Hell when I want to shoot an elk I can hit a ranch a couple of hours from the house for less then what I would have paid for the tags and other items that fuel the hunting and small community industries between my house and some western state. True I wouldn't get the "tingling feeling" in my sitka skivvies one gets hunting in the mountains however it turns out I can go see the mountains anytime I want. I am an overlander now! It's all about priorites and they have changed.

Am I butt hurt about all these cost increases and tag decreases, yea to an extent. What really sucks is how these coversations always seem to devolve into what's mine is mine and you can go now. Problem is all the people who want to stop what you have what we all have is going to be harder to fight off if we don't come to a reasonable agreement and stick together. Death by a thousand cuts was mentioned...sadly we're doing most of the cutting.
 

Bigbull

Junior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
38
Location
Sutherlin, Oregon
Between comments like this and others I've seen that you've spewed across 2 or 3 other message boards all day, I just can't imagine why there's such a large segment of hunters that want nothing to do with BHA :rolleyes:

Yeah. Pretty hard to imagine a guy like that in a leadership position.

He says that he’s not an internet tough guy and is the same in person, but I am not buying it. If he were like that in person, I am certain he would of been physically put in his place some time ago.
I myself would never resort to that type of thing but some would.
 
Top