WY Proposed Grizzly season

[Bonecollector]

Well said Buzz. And if we cut out the normal BS spending that goes on, we may only need to raise prices 1/2 of your suggested amounts, which in minimal.

 

[BuzzH]

Well said Buzz. And if we cut out the normal BS spending that goes on, we may only need to raise prices 1/2 of your suggested amounts, which in minimal.

I don't disagree with you that every GF Agency should run efficiently and I totally agree that BS spending...is, well, BS.

However here is the 2016 annual report by the WYGF:

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/About Us/Commission/WGFD_ANNUALREPORT_2016.pdf

IMO/E they run a pretty lean and mean operation considering that the State is mandated by State law to manage all wildlife within its borders. Lots of species that need consideration and management other than those we can run a hook or bullet through.

I have, and I don't think most others have, a big problem with license fee increases. Mainly because new vehicles, employee costs, fuel, equipment, flight time, yada yada...doesn't cost the same now as it did in 1960.

I believe that too often, many are prone to pointing fingers that hiring good help isn't free, and expecting professional biologists and wardens to work 16 hour days for $5 an hour. IMO, I want to pay biologists at a rate that is not only competitive, but damned likely to attract the best biologists I can get. I'm willing to pay more for better management of my wildlife, including but not limited to, a competitive salary. Likewise, I don't get all butt-hurt when I see Wardens and Biologists driving rigs that were made within the last decade. Some seem to think that GF employees should be driving 1965 dodge power wagons and spend about 50% of their time playing mechanic. I hear all the usual high pitched whining that "those red shirts are driving new rigs every year"...its all crap. I've worked with large fleets of vehicles, and there is mountains of information out there that clearly show turning over vehicles makes sense. I want my biologists doing biology, not turning wrenches on broken down vehicles.

 

[jtm307]

I'd rather throw the GF another Lincoln ($5 bill) a year to cover that revenue and see 30 more average guys get to hunt Wyoming.

Ditto. I'd happily pay a lot more than that, an extra Benjamin perhaps. I'm extremely satisfied with the service I get from WYG&F, both at the macro level and at the individual level with each interaction I have with wardens and biologists.

 

[HighPlainsHunter]

Too late...that horse has been out of the barn for a long time. MT, UT, WY, CO, NM, AZ, OR etc...all have governors/commission/landowner, etc. tags for sheep, moose, goat, deer, elk, pronghorn, bison tags that sell for way more than 6k.
.

Good stuff Buzz. I'm well aware of the governors/auction/landowner tags and they are bad enough but this is the first time I have noticed a draw tag at this price level. Scary stuff IMO.

Thanks for all you do.

 

[nv-hunter]

Too late...that horse has been out of the barn for a long time. MT, UT, WY, CO, NM, AZ, OR etc...all have governors/commission/landowner, etc. tags for sheep, moose, goat, deer, elk, pronghorn, bison tags that sell for way more than 6k.

That's why some of us stepped up to the plate and opposed this chit of special set aside of licenses for anyone, for any reason. These programs were sold to the public as a way to raise funding for wildlife, which they do. However, when you look at any of those States, the money raised for what we (the average hunting public) are giving up, is some of the best opportunity and wildlife that exists in each State. Is it worth it to give up the best of the best for a dude with a fat wallet? I don't believe it is and here's why....the money isn't that significant when you look at the over-all GF budgets.

I'll use Wyoming for an example. We give up 5 each of moose, sheep, bison and another 15 elk, deer, and pronghorn for Governors tags. That's 30 licenses and there isn't even a million generated per year. The GF budget for a year is in the neighborhood of 74-78 million.

Wyoming sells roughly 216,000 NR big-game licenses a year...another 90,000 small game/bird licenses. So just in hunting licenses, we're in the neighborhood of 300,000.

By simply raising each of the those licenses $1.50 we're talking $450,000 in revenue. I would guess by raising the conservation stamp , archery stamp, and fishing licenses a $1 each we would surpass the amount of revenue raised by peddling 30 of our best tags to the fat wallet dudes. Allowing these people to cut to the front of the line, year after year, and hunt the best animals Wyoming has to offer.

I'd rather throw the GF another Lincoln ($5 bill) a year to cover that revenue and see 30 more average guys get to hunt Wyoming.

Of course there's also the fact that the GF does not directly receive all the money from the sale of the Governors tags, and that 20-40% (depending on species) is skimmed off the top. So, the actual benefit to wildlife and habitat is only 60-80% of the total take on Governors licenses.

There is a reason why one of the Sisters of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is equal access to wildlife by all citizens.

IMO, once we started down the path of things like Governors tags, raffle tags, transferable landowner tags, outfitter sponsored tags, set asides of any tags for any special interest, we made a huge mistake that is in direct conflict with the North American Model.

The other thing I constantly hear is how these fat wallet guys are so "generous" and "doing so much for wildlife" when they purchase these tags. Sorry if I'm unimpressed with their diluted version of what philanthropy is...if they were true champions of the wildlife they claim to care so much about, they wouldn't expect a sheep, moose, goat, bison, elk, deer, or pronghorn tag for coughing up some money in support of wildlife.

Its also curious to me, that the wildlife they benefit from, was paid for, brought back from historically low numbers, and managed before there was a such thing as a governors tag, raffle tag, etc...was all paid for by average guys. People like our fathers, grandfathers, who paid their fair share, donated their time and money...and didn't expect anything extra for their efforts. They stood in line with everyone else and didn't run to the Legislature to ask for tag set asides, special privileges, or anything else. They did it because they cared and wanted a future for wildlife, wildlife habitat, and future generations.

Sadly, the money and greed involved with hunting has completely bastardized one of the last things that I ever thought would be corrupted...and wayyy too many people sat/sit back and don't do so much as write a letter, send an email, make a phone call or even whimper as it continues to happen. Happened again in Wyoming this year...another 80 pronghorn tags gone to special interests.

Complacency comes with consequences...and we reap what we sow.

Buzz I had never thought about it like this before, you gave me something to really think about. Thank You

The "special" draw tags is the biggest reason I won't apply in Ut. Too many chances not open to the regular guy.

 

[ore hunter]

I think it should go as a draw tag at a reasonable price for "normal" people.though the odds would be bad,it could be a chance of a lifetime if you were to draw it.might be a bit better odds than "mega bucks"

 

[WY ME]

Buzz did a nice job ripping on the Governor's tags so let me give you the flip side to that issue. Let's look at the five Wyoming Governor's Moose tags that are allocated for auction every year. In 2017 they brought in a total of $197,500 while the total amount of dollars for all 2017 nonresident moose license sales resulted in less than half that amount... only $92,000. The WG&F raised the 2018 moose tags fee from $1400 in 2017 to the current price of $1980... an increase of nearly $500! Using Buzz's logic we would need to raise those tags to $2992 to break even with the amount the 5 governors tags sold for last year!

True, some of the money is "skimmed off" as Buzz likes to say, but where does it go? 10% goes to the license sellers who do the work of arranging a banquet where the tags get sold...you know, those evil organizations "who haven't done their fair share" like RMEF, The Mule Deer Foundation, etc. Another 10% goes to the Wyoming Wildlife Foundation who manage the grant money. Finally another 10% goes to the All Wildlife Committee which oversees grants to nongame species like pikas. birds, etc. So this 30% is not simply skimmed off and wasted.

The remaining 70% is spent on University of Wyoming moose research studies, habitat management, conservation easements, GPS tracking collars and other projects that directly pertain to moose. If this is such a horrible thing then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I wonder how many moose the wolves in WY eat each year, I bet they don't stop at 5.

 

[JM77]

Buzz did a nice job ripping on the Governor's tags so let me give you the flip side to that issue. Let's look at the five Wyoming Governor's Moose tags that are allocated for auction every year. In 2017 they brought in a total of $197,500 while the total amount of dollars for all 2017 nonresident moose license sales resulted in less than half that amount... only $92,000. The WG&F raised the 2018 moose tags fee from $1400 in 2017 to the current price of $1980... an increase of nearly $500! Using Buzz's logic we would need to raise those tags to $2992 to break even with the amount the 5 governors tags sold for last year!

True, some of the money is "skimmed off" as Buzz likes to say, but where does it go? 10% goes to the license sellers who do the work of arranging a banquet where the tags get sold...you know, those evil organizations "who haven't done their fair share" like RMEF, The Mule Deer Foundation, etc. Another 10% goes to the Wyoming Wildlife Foundation who manage the grant money. Finally another 10% goes to the All Wildlife Committee which oversees grants to nongame species like pikas. birds, etc. So this 30% is not simply skimmed off and wasted.

The remaining 70% is spent on University of Wyoming moose research studies, habitat management, conservation easements, GPS tracking collars and other projects that directly pertain to moose. If this is such a horrible thing then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I wonder how many moose the wolves in WY eat each year, I bet they don't stop at 5.

Money, money, money, it's all about the money WY ME. Forget the true backbone of wildlife management revenue; the average hunter. Truth is, if our Game & Fish Dept was properly funded, there would be no need to fund research at 80 cents or less on the dollar. Significant to me is the average hunter in the field or proud to me is my daughter or one of my grandchildren with a hunting license, not how much some rich "fat cat" paid for a privilege that should be shared equally by all.

As for moose hunting in Wyoming, there has been a constant decline in tag numbers statewide, despite all these programs funded by Governor tag money. This is true for sheep also. My wife and I spent over twenty years each applying for our once in a lifetime chance to hunt moose in Wyoming. Where we hunted, an average of 20% of the total of any moose tag holders were Governor tag holders. Tell me that doesn't have management consequences or an effect on those that have to draw a license. As moose and sheep numbers decline, Governor tags numbers remain the same. This is the problem with legislative meddling in wildlife management.

Using your logic WY ME, would you be in favor of auctioning all moose, sheep and bison tags to maximize revenue? Forget equal access to our wildlife, there's dollar signs in those hills! Besides, as long as wolves are out there eating moose, what's five more dead ones killed by Governor tag holders?

Money, that's what it is...

 

[jtm307]

In 2017 they brought in a total of $197,500...

Abolish Governor moose tags and increase all big game licenses by a single Washington. Viola! No special privileges. Not a penny lost.

 

[BuzzH]

Seems others agree that set asides and granting special privileges via various money tags may not be the best idea:

https://www.denverpost.com/2009/01/24/eastman-decries-big-money-hunts/

 

[BuzzH]

Wow, lots of wisdom in this post and the nail was hit squarely on the head here:

http://blog.eastmans.com/preview-auction-tags-friend-or-foe/

"In my mind auction tags have always been a potential liability to our sport. As of lately many others in the industry seem to have taken to my viewpoint on the subject. We here at Eastmans’ have been against these tags since their inception and our stance has never waivered. It looks like the general public is finally noticing that these “elite licenses” and their huge price tags may be more of a liability to the sport of hunting than they’re an asset to conservation. After all, that’s where the vast portion of that money is supposed to be going to, right? It’s quite possible that these huge sums of money end up creating more corruption, kickbacks, abuse and waste than they do habitat and conservation."

The ultimate question boils down to this- “Are these high dollar licenses worth the cost of the potential waste, fraud and abuse?” Everyone seems to be on the dole with these tags except the average hunter, like yourself, who actually owns the wildlife and public lands that make these tags even possible.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

As long as we have drifted a little away from the OP, I'll weigh in on a pet peeve of mine....landowner tags. In most instances landowner tags were intended to give the landowner a few tags for their personal use on their own land. Now they are sold to the highest bidder. At least in most instances they have to be used in the unit where the landowner has their property. They should be restricted to the private land the landowner owns and for their families use only.

 

[Bonecollector]

As long as we have drifted a little away from the OP, I'll weigh in on a pet peeve of mine....landowner tags. In most instances landowner tags were intended to give the landowner a few tags for their personal use on their own land. Now they are sold to the highest bidder. At least in most instances they have to be used in the unit where the landowner has their property. They should be restricted to the private land the landowner owns and for their families use only.

I agree 100%

 

[Fink]

As long as we have drifted a little away from the OP, I'll weigh in on a pet peeve of mine....landowner tags. In most instances landowner tags were intended to give the landowner a few tags for their personal use on their own land. Now they are sold to the highest bidder. At least in most instances they have to be used in the unit where the landowner has their property. They should be restricted to the private land the landowner owns and for their families use only.

Truth.. I can't understand for the life of me, why someone's private landowner tag is good for public land. I dont have a problem with landowner tags, but there's got to be restrictions. In Missouri, your landowner tag is good for your land that you own, and is non transferable. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[CoHiCntry]

As long as we have drifted a little away from the OP, I'll weigh in on a pet peeve of mine....landowner tags. In most instances landowner tags were intended to give the landowner a few tags for their personal use on their own land. Now they are sold to the highest bidder. At least in most instances they have to be used in the unit where the landowner has their property. They should be restricted to the private land the landowner owns and for their families use only.

I agree... It's just another way to funnel tags to landowners with deep pockets or to those who buy them for ridiculous amounts of money. Usually guy's with deep pockets once again. I know of a landowner in a highly sought after Colorado unit that routinely gets a half dozen or so bull elk tags for a unit that most people have to wait 15 or 20 years for! He flies in all his rich buddies and they shoot bulls every year. These guys don't have to wait to be drawn, their just handed a trophy tag every year and essentially cut in line in front of everyone else. Very frustrating!

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

At least here in Colorado, the private land tag is issued for a designated unit and has to be used on private land. Anybody can apply , but the above restrictions apply. They are not the same as landowner tags,

 

[WY ME]

Money, money, money, it's all about the money WY ME. Forget the true backbone of wildlife management revenue; the average hunter. Truth is, if our Game & Fish Dept was properly funded, there would be no need to fund research at 80 cents or less on the dollar. Significant to me is the average hunter in the field or proud to me is my daughter or one of my grandchildren with a hunting license, not how much some rich "fat cat" paid for a privilege that should be shared equally by all.

As for moose hunting in Wyoming, there has been a constant decline in tag numbers statewide, despite all these programs funded by Governor tag money. This is true for sheep also. My wife and I spent over twenty years each applying for our once in a lifetime chance to hunt moose in Wyoming. Where we hunted, an average of 20% of the total of any moose tag holders were Governor tag holders. Tell me that doesn't have management consequences or an effect on those that have to draw a license. As moose and sheep numbers decline, Governor tags numbers remain the same. This is the problem with legislative meddling in wildlife management.

Using your logic WY ME, would you be in favor of auctioning all moose, sheep and bison tags to maximize revenue? Forget equal access to our wildlife, there's dollar signs in those hills! Besides, as long as wolves are out there eating moose, what's five more dead ones killed by Governor tag holders?

Money, that's what it is...

I'm sorry you feel the hundreds of thousands of dollars raised by these tags and used for moose habitat projects and research has been a waste of time and will have absolutely no immediate nor future impacts on the Wyoming's moose populations or management decisions. You should take up your argument with a WG&F moose biologist. While you're at it, since you also mentioned sheep tags, you should call the Wild Sheep Foundation and express your opinion to them. They raise a bunch of $ from the sale of sheep tags. They also spend dollars on research, habitat, etc. plus they spend big bucks to purchase domestic sheep grazing allotments and then retire them in an effort to reduce disease transmittal to the wild sheep thus raising future wild sheep populations.

By the way the State of Minnesota refused to allow for any governor's type moose licenses for just the same argument you have. Instead they eventually closed the moose hunting season statewide due to declining moose numbers. How did that one work out?

 

[NE69]

Truth.. I can't understand for the life of me, why someone's private landowner tag is good for public land. I dont have a problem with landowner tags, but there's got to be restrictions. In Missouri, your landowner tag is good for your land that you own, and is non transferable. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Same in Nebraska, only good on your land and not transferrable. This is how it should be.

 

[fackelberry]

I'm with most of you on the landowner tags only good on the landowners private land. But there are ways around that. I mean who is gonna make SURE they kill it on private land. Who says they arent gonna drive to the forest service or BLM ground and shoot an animal. It would be on your honor system and we all know how that works in the hunting community. HAHA. If they didnt find the trophy on the private but they seen one a few miles down the road on Forest service, wouldn't be real hard to go shoot it and haul it back to the private land. So there are alot of ways around ANY system of how tags are used or allocated.

 

[JM77]

I'm sorry you feel the hundreds of thousands of dollars raised by these tags and used for moose habitat projects and research has been a waste of time and will have absolutely no immediate nor future impacts on the Wyoming's moose populations or management decisions. You should take up your argument with a WG&F moose biologist. While you're at it, since you also mentioned sheep tags, you should call the Wild Sheep Foundation and express your opinion to them. They raise a bunch of $ from the sale of sheep tags. They also spend dollars on research, habitat, etc. plus they spend big bucks to purchase domestic sheep grazing allotments and then retire them in an effort to reduce disease transmittal to the wild sheep thus raising future wild sheep populations.

By the way the State of Minnesota refused to allow for any governor's type moose licenses for just the same argument you have. Instead they eventually closed the moose hunting season statewide due to declining moose numbers. How did that one work out?

Please WY ME show me some evidence that closing the moose season in Minnesota was related to not auctioning off governor's type tags. That has to be one of the most crystal ball type comments I've seen in awhile!

But again, we wouldn't have to rely on any money from these types of auction tags if we just funded our Game & Fish adequately. And by the way, since you have mentioned G&F biologists, ask them how they are doing coming up with answers on why moose are declining in Wyoming. Back in the 1980's there were 1500 moose tags available for hunters. That number has dwindled to 330. Oh, but there are still 5 Governor's tags!

One more thing, I happen to think it's just a little outrageous that 10% of all auctions go to the WCF. Sure, they should get reimbursed for arranging these tags sales, but 10%?! For one sheep tag @ 95,000, please show me what the foundation does to receive $9500 when that money could go back to wildlife instead! Plenty of vendors could sell those tags for much less I am sure.