blog.eastmans.com
Shows how little you both know about the NR/R elk draw.An increase of 2,000 elk tags on the statewide quota would mean nearly 320 additional nonresident elk hunters will be heading afield this fall season in pursuit of elk.
This move could help to stifle the point creep seen over the past half a decade inside the Wyoming tag draw system by increasing the nonresident elk hunting opportunity by nearly 17% if all of the additional tags were limited quota bull elk tags.
3....2....1.....BuzzH
Your knowledge is typically appreciated. Your attitude is another story.
Two ways to calculate a 90/10 split... For instance let's say there is 200 moose permits. A true 90/10 split would give non-residents 20 permits. The other way is by area. If viewing by area, non-residents would only get a permit if the area offered at least 10 permits. Under an area system, non-residents would get significantly fewer than 20 permits. That's what many pushing for 90/10 are asking for but won't come out and say it because it would be met with even more opposition. In reality it would end up being approximately 93/7.
It will be interesting if the 90-10 split were to happen and there be substantially less NR's that are able to pay over the top price tags compared to residents and if at some point the residents get mad that fish and game hike their prices to make up the difference in $. Someone has to pay the bills and if its not the residents who else could it be? Just a question
Won't have to raise Resident liceses much...been discussed how to make up the revenue and its not a big deal...Add $10 to all the full priced Resident licenses and $3 to an annual Resident fishing license and you're well past the revenue loss to 90-10 going for all species.It will be interesting if the 90-10 split were to happen and there be substantially less NR's that are able to pay over the top price tags compared to residents and if at some point the residents get mad that fish and game hike their prices to make up the difference in $. Someone has to pay the bills and if its not the residents who else could it be? Just a question
Yes, many tears of joy will flow from us residents if it only costs a few extra bucks for more opportunity.
Right, because 7,250 full priced elk tags going to NR's now, versus 7,250 full priced tags going to NR's under 90-10 is different?I understand that the license prices wouldn't be the end of the world but I'm guessing if you factor in all the other money that could be lost with food, hotels, guides etc. There is probably more of a difference than you'd think. And please don't get me wrong, i really don't give a dam what they decide to do. Lots of places to hunt
The numbers stay the same but the allocations per area would be very different. More of those tags would be general tags. You know guys are less likely to pay for guided hunts on general tags so there would be fewer guides hired yearly for elk. As to other species, there would be reductions and a loss of revenue in the areas mustang mentioned. The lost revenue likely wouldn't be substantial enough to dissuade the argument but there is no reason to not tell the whole truth. Local economies will be impacted when 90/10 passes.
Of course there will be exceptions but the fact is a good portion of residents will typically apply for the hunts closer to home- spending considerably less. There are studies and data to back this up if you care to research. Yes, there are guided hunts in general areas... but not near as many as there are in LQ areas. The amount charged for those guided general hunts is also considerably less on average. Like I said, the amount lost likely won't be enough to sway the argument but it's ridiculous for Buzz, or anyone else, to say there will be no financial impact to local economies.
