NR Sheep/Goats etc to 10%

[Alabama]

Yes, if passed will affect 2016.

AZ, nr quota change to 5% 5% bonus pass/1-2 pass draws

So 5% in the bonus pass and 5% to the 2nd pass. Still 10% but tag quota for NR can't be met in the bonus pass? Or 5% total quota? please elaborate WapitiBob.

 

[bigeasygator]

If this goes through I think I'm done putting in for WY. I apply for elk, sheep, moose, and deer. Just doesn't seem worth it anymore given the odds, especially for moose and sheep.

 

[WapitiBob]

So 5% in the bonus pass and 5% to the 2nd pass. Still 10% but tag quota for NR can't be met in the bonus pass? Or 5% total quota? please elaborate WapitiBob.

sorry, this

5% in the bonus pass and 5% to the 2nd pass. Still 10% but tag quota for NR can't be met in the bonus pass

 

[nebowhunter]

I understand a residents frustration. But as someone who has been putting in for points for years, it doesnt seem right to just change the way things are done. It would be like making a payment on a boat or something and someone saying since it is not paid for yet so we are just going to double the price. And there is nothing you can do about it except keep making the payments or give it back. Seems right to me?

 

[HiMtnHnter]

I understand a residents frustration. But as someone who has been putting in for points for years, it doesnt seem right to just change the way things are done. It would be like making a payment on a boat or something and someone saying since it is not paid for yet so we are just going to double the price. And there is nothing you can do about it except keep making the payments or give it back. Seems right to me?

By applying for a coveted trophy tag, your not putting a "down payment". There's no guarantee of ever drawing. And, no one's doubling the price of the tags, they'll just be fewer of them available.

Guaranteed hunts for moose, sheep, goat, etc are possible to get. The down payment is steep though.

 

[NDHunter]

I understand a residents frustration. But as someone who has been putting in for points for years, it doesnt seem right to just change the way things are done. It would be like making a payment on a boat or something and someone saying since it is not paid for yet so we are just going to double the price. And there is nothing you can do about it except keep making the payments or give it back. Seems right to me?

This is definitely very frustrating as states are always changing their draw systems. Who knows, maybe in 10 more years they'll change it again and only 5% of the tags will go to NR's.

This is another big problem with chasing the primo tags for elk, deer and antelope. You might figure you could draw the tag when you get to 20 points and then they might tweak the system and now it'll take 30 points. That could happen to some of the top point holders in AZ with the 5% bonus pass quota that Wapiti Bob was talking about.

 

[coloradoshedhead]

Hopefully you Wyoming residents are ready to pony up and shell up some more cash for these coveted tags, like horniac said the game and fish dept.'s revenue was probably very dependent on those nr tags. The money has to come from somewhere. I'm not familiar with their revenue channels. Does anybody want to imform those of us who don't? Is it like Colorado where a good majority of the budget comes from license/tag sales?

 

[libidilatimmy]

I did a quick analysis for PP groups last night to look at the impact the tag allocation would have. The thing is that adding what ends up being a small number of tags to the R draw doesn't really impact the R side of the draw system that much, while it will impact the NR side pretty significantly if one isn't in the top few point classes.

Most of the smart NR applicants will most likely be bailing on the system if passed creating further budget shortfalls. Not smart in my opinion.

 

[woodtick]

I didn't want to look at this thread, since I'm not in my 40's I wasn't able to get in on the ground floor of the point system in Wyoming. I've gone damn near broke on my graduate student income forking out the money for all 5 species in WY, I'm in the top points heap for Deer and Elk, Moose and Sheep I run in the middle of the pack with 10pts. If this does indeed go through I might as well just say thank you to the neighboring state for pouring salt on open wound!!

I feel that most states are doing this to combat with points creep, get people to drop out for x amount of years and then they forfeit all there accumulated points! What really bothers me is the talk of Idaho trying again to bring in a PP or BP system.

I'm fed up just like most of you are, I might as well just hang up the rifle and start golfing more!! If I bowhunted more than I do I might have a better chance at drawing some good tags but I can't stand the heat, or the equipment involved just not my style I guess!! I'll be following this thread for updates!

 

[RICMIC]

I got this info from an article in the Wyoming Outdoors magazine. This is an outfitters mag, so consider the source. They do however take the numbers from WGFD, who are opposed to these changes. I paraphrased a bit and left a lot more info out, but here are the stats quoted: The impacts of a 50% reduction in NR big game license sales would be astonishing. It would leave a $7 million gap in WGFD license funding. It would take a 250% increase in resident hunting license prices just to cover that hole. The 90/10 split would also mean a 75% reduction in donations to the search & rescue fund. It could lead to a reduction of at least $25,000 to Access Yes donations, and that means a loss of about 250,000 acres enrolled in the Access Yes program. Conservation stamp funding could also be negatively impacted to the tune of more than $231,000. Finally, there's the economic impact that affects so many businesses across the state of WY. A 50% reduction in NR licenses would cost WY $100 million each year in lost tourism revenue. End quote.
Now I know that these numbers are referring to an across the board reduction of 50% of all species, and House Bill 112 only addresses the sheep, goat, a moose NR allocations. NRs don't get a vote except with their $. Look at bison tags. If you are willing to put up $2,522 you have a 100% chance to get a cow tag. The same price has a 3% chance for a bull tag. They could raise bull tags to 10K and still sell out to the very few who apply. Do we really want to go there?

 

[WY ME]

RICMIC

As a WY resident I'm not all that concerned if Wyoming changes the percentages for nonresidents or not, although it will castrate my nonresident brother's chance of ever hunting sheep here. By the way, before your home state of Minnesota shut down moose hunting a couple years ago how many moose tags did the MN DNR give to nonresidents?

Larry Hicks, the sponsor of the bill, said it cost the WG&F less than $170,000 in tag fees. I think Wyoming gives too many tags to nonresidents and and charges far too much for them. But like I said it doesn't make much difference to me either way.

 

[laxwyo]

RICMIC,

maybe they thought if all tags were reduced to 10%. This is for moose, sheep and goats. There isn't very many tags so the dollar amount would be minimal. Also, AccessYes and Search and Rescue donations are made at the time of applications so I don't see how that would be affected. I think the number of applicants will remain the same

 

[coloradoshedhead]

RICMIC

As a WY resident I'm not all that concerned if Wyoming changes the percentages for nonresidents or not, although it will castrate my nonresident brother's chance of ever hunting sheep here. By the way, before your home state of Minnesota shut down moose hunting a couple years ago how many moose tags did the MN DNR give to nonresidents?

Larry Hicks, the sponsor of the bill, said it cost the WG&F less than $170,000 in tag fees. I think Wyoming gives too many tags to nonresidents and and charges far too much for them. But like I said it doesn't make much difference to me either way.

*Yet*
It doesn't make much of a difference maybe for a couple years until they figure the only way to make up the difference is to jack up license and tag costs. I think the quote before said they would need to increase prices by 250%. Not to mention the impact on small businesses from a loss of nr hunters which we are all directly or indirectly affected by whether you like it or not.

 

[Tim McCoy]

RICMIC

As a WY resident I'm not all that concerned if Wyoming changes the percentages for nonresidents or not, although it will castrate my nonresident brother's chance of ever hunting sheep here. By the way, before your home state of Minnesota shut down moose hunting a couple years ago how many moose tags did the MN DNR give to nonresidents?

Larry Hicks, the sponsor of the bill, said it cost the WG&F less than $170,000 in tag fees. I think Wyoming gives too many tags to nonresidents and and charges far too much for them. But like I said it doesn't make much difference to me either way.

Funny, this reminds me of what my old boss always used to say. How loud one yells depends on whose Ox is being gored. What ever they do, it can't get much worse than how OR treats NR's in the draws. Very low cap out here.

 

[PointsHunter]

I did a quick analysis for PP groups last night to look at the impact the tag allocation would have. The thing is that adding what ends up being a small number of tags to the R draw doesn't really impact the R side of the draw system that much, while it will impact the NR side pretty significantly if one isn't in the top few point classes.

Most of the smart NR applicants will most likely be bailing on the system if passed creating further budget shortfalls. Not smart in my opinion.

Huge drop off between 15 and 16 for sheep. That group almost seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.. This is gonna sting. Too many points to think about stop putting in, but the wait list will get quite a bit longer.

 

[RICMIC]

I did add on to the end of the quote that this was if the 90/10 applied to all species. I'm not in any states pool for the "Trophy" species, so I have nothing invested and nothing at risk. Minnesota recently stopped all moose hunting in the state due to drastically lower numbers of moose. True, it was residents only, but I applied for 30 years without ever drawing a tag. A resident tag was $300, so at the 12X WY multiplier that would equal $3,600 if they did have a NR allocation. At present, in WY 15 years of points and a tag fee totals around 3K, IF you ever draw. I can fly in to an Ontario remote lake, stay in a nice cabin, with a boat & motor for 2.4K with OTC tags. If I want a moose, I'll go there.
I've been a firearms safety instructor for 25 years, and one of the numbers we inform the students about is that hunters only make up 10% of the population. Even in Wyoming that number is 11%. More and more, hunters are getting priced out. In states with referendums, they are getting shut out. I just don't like the US VS: Them concept between R and NR hunters. Excuse me for rambling.
You have a greater problem in WY and ID. I've snowmobiled around Island Park, ID and West Yellowstone for the last ten years. and hunted the Gros Ventre and the Wyoming Range six years. My sighting of moose are perhaps 10% of what they used to be. I won't blame it all on wolves, but they do have a huge impact on moose.

 

[WY ME]

Tim McCoy
You said "Funny, this reminds me of what my old boss always used to say. How loud one yells depends on whose Ox is being gored."

Again for the third time, I don't care if the tags are reduced or not.

SheadHead
You said "I think the quote before said they would need to increase prices by 250%. Not to mention the impact on small businesses from a loss of nr hunters which we are all directly or indirectly affected by whether you like it or not."

You are right. Every summer when the tourists come to Jackson Hole I see the gas prices get jacked up and in November after they leave, the stores and restaurants have "local appreciation sales" So yes "whether I like it or not" I am affected. As for the 250% fee hike, that was a quote from WYOGA so you can take that with a grain of salt.

 

[WY ME]

RICMIC wrote what I was thinking about...the Res-vs-nonres thing. If we had more animals in WY the WG&F would sell more tags and they'd be flush with cash. The odds of drawing a tag for everyone would get better and we'd have higher quality hunts. The wolves (and wolf promoters) are our worst enemy.

 

[coloradoshedhead]

RICMIC wrote what I was thinking about...the Res-vs-nonres thing. If we had more animals in WY the WG&F would sell more tags and they'd be flush with cash. The odds of drawing a tag for everyone would get better and we'd have higher quality hunts. The wolves (and wolf promoters) are our worst enemy.

I wish that were true. Colorado is flush with animals(elk especially) and a nr bull tag is just under $600. Yet, the CPW is always playing the broke card. Still the CPW commissioners are taking away nr tags yearly too. Kind of sounds like these wildlife agencies need to rethink their plans/motives.

 

[WY ME]

The nonresident tag price hikes are always justified by the "neighboring states charge more for their elk tags so we must not be charging enough" philosophy. Then after the price hikes come the increased budget expenditures. New truck purchases, etc. don't equate to better hunting.