NR Sheep/Goats etc to 10%

[Tim McCoy]

I have been buying NR moose and sheep points for my son since he was 12. He has 10 points now at 21 years old. Based on the spreadsheet posted previously by Libidilatimmy he will be 148 years old before they get to his point pool to be eligible for a sheep tag and 107 years old before his point class is even eligible for a moose tag if this bill is passed!

As one of the other posters pointed out, what's to prevent WY from reducing the NR quota from 10% to say 5% after investing another couple of thousand in high priced worthless moose and sheep preference points?

The WY moose and sheep points game will become even more of a NR "fool's paradise" with the proposed quota reduction. What is that old saying; "Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me..."

Horniac

No way to know about future changes, but past changes tell us NR's will lose to political pressure brought to bear by Residents. Makes me wonder, what if any applicant drop out assumptions did LT make? If he factored that in and was correct, which is impossible to know for sure, I'd bail. If he did not factor any fall out in at all, you may want to keep your powder dry for a bit. You could have drop out due to the change, and more over a few years as some have health issues and bail out. Were I
21 with 10, I'd be inclined to wait and see for a bit, probably for just for sheep, if the point fees did not kill me. Not many 21 year olds are that far into the game. What is the average age of the hunters in the pool? Just makes me wonder if there is not a decent chance for him, say in 20-25 years, has a cost, but he'd have much less point competition then. Be easier to predict in a couple years I think. Just some food for thought.

 

[Tim McCoy]

That's fine if they live on your or other resident's private land. We are all residents of the United States of America and public land is OUR resource. Wildlife is a collective resource that should be shared by all.

I agree. Pittman Roberson collects taxes at the Federal level and is distributed to states by formula of land mass and licensed hunters, last I knew. Maybe it has changed. Makes a strong argument for some reasonable level of NR participation, as we all contribute to the states at some level.

 

[laxwyo]

There's some wolves I wouldn't mind everyone hunting

 

[JEandAsGuide]

I do agree with Halo that changing rules after playing with one set for 14 is unfair

Unfair? You just said that giving one of these tags to a NR was ludicrous. How is that not unfair? Because I was born, raised, started a family and career 1500 miles away from a sheep, I should be denied the opportunity to do something I have dreamed of since childhood.? I understand that it's a limited resource. Trust me, if I knew I could make a decent living doing what I do in WY and my family wouldn't mind being uprooted, I would be gone!

 

[laxwyo]

Having the rules changed after 14 years is unfair to the people playing for 14 years.

I'm sorry you live where you do. What's more important? Your family and job or shooting an animal?

 

[JEandAsGuide]

I don't understand how you can say that giving a NR one of these tags is ludicrous and then say it's unfair to change the rules on a NR.

I don't understand that question. Of course my family is more important. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to pursue a dream?

 

[NDHunter]

I think we can keep our hunting tradition alive by hunting what's available in our backyard first and then hunting what's available other places. I know everyone wants a big ole moose or ram but I think it's unfair to give any of these to out of staters. If you live in bird country, become a bird hunter. If you live in walleye country, enjoy walleye fishing. If killing big elk is that much a priority, move somewhere that has elk. I don't see how anyone thinks they are entitled to a few of wyoming's sheep when they live 1500 miles away and throw a few bucks to our state.

I know NR pay a lot of money to the GF and bring tons of money to the state. That's fine when you're talking about elk and deer region hunting in areas that can sustain more than the resident population of hunters. It's not ok when you're talking about a very limited resource like moose, sheep and mountain goats. Giving even one of these tags to a NR at the expense of a resident is ludicrous.

This is just my opinion and I've been wrong before.

I get where you're coming from but have to disagree. If we go down that road, where does it end in 50 years with regards to who can apply for which tags? Do we tell guys who live in Casper that they can't apply for sheep tags because they don't live in the same county as the sheep unit? For bison that migrate out of Yellowstone and get shot in Montana, should Wyoming demand some retribution because Montanan's are shooting "their" bison. Or what if I am a NR who wants to go trout fishing in a stream in the Bighorns, should I be able to?

I'll admit I'm biased as a NR but feel like at least a certain portion of tags should be available to NR's. I'll admit 25% is quite a bit but I sure hope it never goes below 10%.

 

[CoHiCntry]

I think we can keep our hunting tradition alive by hunting what's available in our backyard first and then hunting what's available other places. If you live in bird country, become a bird hunter. If you live in walleye country, enjoy walleye fishing.

I agree with this statement and I'm doing this more and more. Looking at what IS available right here in my backyard and worrying about trying to hunt in other states less and less. With the constant increase in tag fees, lower quotas for trophy tags for non-residents and the ever increasing amount of guys getting in the points game all the time is discouraging to say the least. My out of state applications are dwindling all the time. As I draw some of the tags I have a lot of points for, I will be getting out afterwards!

A guy can hunt out west every year if he wants to for antelope, deer and elk. It's trophy hunting and points chasing that keeps guys at home every year. If it's sheep, goat, and moose you desire... that's a tough one as a non-resident. You have to apply, and be willing to put up with high tag fees and low quotas. That's just the way it is. Not enough supply for the demand. Like has been mentioned, your probably better off saving a little dough and looking at Alaska, and or Canada. I've had the fortune to hunt sheep and moose here in Colorado and that will most likely be my only opportunities.

 

[Zim]

Yup, at least we had plenty of warning on this. I also dumped all my sheep points when they hiked fees, and also burned my moose points in 2011 to get out of that game. I am up to 20 points in several states and now closely monitor "bend-over-nonresident-legislation" in all states so I can bail quickly. Got another one this year.........in Arizona. Watch the point holders come out of the woodwork there to cash points. I got 13 for unit 1 archery elk but don't expect to draw for that reason. Was 50/50 even without the news. So I will cash my Utah deer points as an insurance policy.

So so lucky I picked 2014 to not draw any tags! Ended up with health problems that would have eliminated any western hunts. Healed up for this year!

Sorry to all you nonresidents with lots of WY sheep & moose points. Bend over and grab you ankles.

 

[Triple BB]

This change should've happened long ago. Still no guarantee it will pass this year. Sometimes its takes several years to get these bills through. It'll probably depend in part how much the outfitters are greasing certain members of the legislature. Its one of those things if you can't afford it, either start a different savings plan or get out of the game. I sent in close to $7000 last year to apply for sheep moose, goat, etc., in Colorado. Its questionable whether I'll draw any of those tags and I'm aware that they may change the game at some point. That's the risk you take if yer gonna play.

On a side note, I think they should change the bill so the 15% of tags that would go to residents be a special draw like with non residents and charge whatever the cost is that nonresidents are paying so there would be no net loss of revenue to the G&F. I'd be glad to pay it for better draw odds and I'll bet there's a bunch of residents who would gladly do the same...

 

[junior13]

On a side note, I think they should change the bill so the 15% of tags that would go to residents be a special draw like with non residents and charge whatever the cost is that nonresidents are paying so there would be no net loss of revenue to the G&F. I'd be glad to pay it for better draw odds and I'll bet there's a bunch of residents who would gladly do the same...

Good idea I think...maybe even add a little extra for the estimated NR that drop out. Otherwise, I don't see this going through this year, not the way its written.

 

[Alabama]

Why aren't these states making these all once in a lifetime hunts? I wonder how many apps there are from people who have already drawn?

 

[bdjmtn]

Wyoming no doubt will pass this but I believe the next step is the nonresident will be 50% random and 50% points draw.

 

[Cobbhunts]

Wyoming no doubt will pass this but I believe the next step is the nonresident will be 50% random and 50% points draw.

This will kill the point holders even more. I have no dog in this fight as I realized really quick that I should not attempt to buy points for sheep ect..in WY. I guess looking from the outside in, I'd have to say I lean towards agreeing with the 10% NR move. I would feel bad for the NR point holders though, for sure.

My only gripe would be the NR PP cost per point versus the Res cost per PP. Isn't the Res PP really cheap? If they do this I believe they should offer some sort of PP buy back program for NRs. Make it valid for only 1 year. That way you're either selling them back, or staying in the running. And not "seeing" how many sold out and what not.

Good luck to all that would be impacted by this. There doesn't seem to be a good answer to the supply demand issue with these tags.

 

[Umpqua Hunter]

I really have no skin in the game as I drew my Wyoming moose tag in 1999 and my sheep tag in 2009. I also believe residents should receive the lion's share of their big game tags.

With that said, I have friends deep into the point game and this change will basically nullify their investment. One friend lays brick and stone for a living. He makes very few out of state applications but wanted to hunt moose and sheep one time in his life so that is where he invested his non-resident hunting dollars. He is 60 years old and has invested around $2000 into Wyoming for moose and sheep points. This change will basically nullify that investment.

I have done a very rough calculation and based on $100/point for sheep and $75/point for moose, the current pool of non-resident applicants represents about $11.4 million invested. This calculation does not take into account that many years ago, Wyoming changed their preference point fee for $7 to the current fee structure which would lower that figure. With millions invested I think Wyoming is inviting a class action lawsuit for a recovery of point fees if this legislation passes. How would a judge and jury see offering a certain set of rules, collecting fees for 20 years, then changing those rules midstream?

If you do the math, the improvement in resident draw odds are not as significant as one might imagine. A sheep hunt that had 2% odds, will go up to about 2.4% odds. A tag that takes 30 years to draw will take about 25 years to draw.

 

[EBOLAVIRS]

I agree, someone will sue, it would likely go class action, and get expensive fast for the state...the whole preference point sham should probably be eliminated in all states.

 

[Cobbhunts]

How would a judge and jury see offering a certain set of rules, collecting fees for 20 years, then changing those rules midstream?

To some folks on this forum....this is perfectly acceptable. Just sayin' [emoji38]

 

[libidilatimmy]

No way to know about future changes, but past changes tell us NR's will lose to political pressure brought to bear by Residents. Makes me wonder, what if any applicant drop out assumptions did LT make? If he factored that in and was correct, which is impossible to know for sure, I'd bail. If he did not factor any fall out in at all, you may want to keep your powder dry for a bit. You could have drop out due to the change, and more over a few years as some have health issues and bail out. Were I
21 with 10, I'd be inclined to wait and see for a bit, probably for just for sheep, if the point fees did not kill me. Not many 21 year olds are that far into the game. What is the average age of the hunters in the pool? Just makes me wonder if there is not a decent chance for him, say in 20-25 years, has a cost, but he'd have much less point competition then. Be easier to predict in a couple years I think. Just some food for thought.

I didn't figure any sort of fallout rate as that's a total crap shoot. Undoubtedly, there would be a bunch of people that would cut their losses in the next couple years, but at the same time we'd see a different application strategy from some of the top point groups flooding the draw as well.

 

[Stig87]

As a resident I can see why people with years and years invested in the system would be upset with this change, on the other hand as a resident it erks me that a non-resident can draw a tag 3,4, or even 5 years faster than a resident....that's over 20% faster! Perhaps a better solution would be to not "set-aside" a guaranteed amount of tags to go to non residents regardless. Instead, put a limit on the amount that can go to NR (10%, 20%, 25%, whatever it may be). What this could do is put everybody, res and NR, in the same running together and once the limit is reached for nonresidents in each area, no more are given to NR. Conversely, there would be the potential of 0 tags being given to NR if they don't have enough points to play the game (such as areas 1 or 38 for moose where you must have max points to draw).

It would take some work to refine the drawing system as it stands, but I think it would be more fair to all parties involved. I also think residents would more inclined to leave a 20% limit on nonresident licenses.

 

[RICMIC]

SIG87; As it is now in WY, the deer and antelope licenses are allocated in an 80/20 split between residents and non-residents. Elk are a 84/16 split. Sheep and mt. goat are a 75/25 split. Moose is a 80/20 split. Some zones with a low number of tags may have 0 or 1 tag available to NRs. Therefore, there already is a cap on NR tags. I don't think that a 90/20 split on "trophy" species is necessarily unfair, but I might think so if I was in the point game in WY, or if they extended it to include all species.