WY tag price increases :(

sigpros

Very Active Member
Aug 10, 2011
507
119
missouri
Hilltop almost had me talked into the cow moose thing. Glad I didn't start buying points. With the SD buffalo increase that will be the only north of 1K tag I'll be able to afford
 

missjordan

Veteran member
Dec 9, 2014
1,136
22
Missoula, MT
WY tag price increases 😞

Makes me feel pretty fortunate to live out west! This will limit a lot of people's opportunity to hunt out west every year because the expense goes beyond tag fees. its the gas, vacation time, equipment purchases, etc. also to get out here. I️ wanted to start hunting Wyoming but now I️ might be more particular about what year is the year i try to cash out on a hunt. The cost can be feasible if you budget for it, and I'm ok with that since I️ can hunt deer, elk, and antelope every year anyways in Montana. Might as well treat it like a trophy hunt and hang low for several years trying to build points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

whip

New Member
Oct 26, 2013
5
0
I'm a Wyoming resident so my opinion on price increases is slanted. The cost of protecting and conserving wildlife is rising. More and more pressure from a variety of interests are demanding more services from the Wyoming Game and Fish. Add to that the overall state budget crisis from the down turn in the energy industry has all contributed to the need for more money for wildlife. I suspect that resident license costs will also increase. I for one will pay the increase happily as a resident. When I plan to hunt out of state I expect to pay for the privilege especially to hunt prime areas with outstanding hunt quality. Whether that be trophy animals or other factors that I see as quality. Hunting is and will continue to be a privilege that is expensive to participate in. Its unfortunate that so many are offended by the price increase but the truth is that for those willing to pay the extra money they will have more opportunity to draw a license.
 

johnsd16

Active Member
Mar 16, 2014
353
3
N Idaho
I'm a Wyoming resident so my opinion on price increases is slanted. The cost of protecting and conserving wildlife is rising. More and more pressure from a variety of interests are demanding more services from the Wyoming Game and Fish. Add to that the overall state budget crisis from the down turn in the energy industry has all contributed to the need for more money for wildlife. I suspect that resident license costs will also increase. I for one will pay the increase happily as a resident. When I plan to hunt out of state I expect to pay for the privilege especially to hunt prime areas with outstanding hunt quality. Whether that be trophy animals or other factors that I see as quality. Hunting is and will continue to be a privilege that is expensive to participate in. Its unfortunate that so many are offended by the price increase but the truth is that for those willing to pay the extra money they will have more opportunity to draw a license.

I think a big part of the issue many have with these types of price hikes is that the $$$ don't go back to habitat and the resource we are paying to have a chance at using. Most of the states make the consumptive users (hunters/fisherman) foot the bill and the money then goes into the general fund. Total joke. Not sure exactly how WY is structured, but it is never fair. If all our tag dollars went to enforcement, habitat, game research, etc....I too would gladly pay way more than I do. Ow. However, I don't even like my resident fees knowing that most of the money is going to something completely unrelated to what I'm doing, to build a boardwalk for some bird watchers or find research on a salamander that is threatened.
 

wy-tex

Veteran member
May 2, 2016
1,019
278
SE Wyoming
Wyoming puts the license money right back into the G&F department, they do not get general fund money from the state.
 

wy-tex

Veteran member
May 2, 2016
1,019
278
SE Wyoming
Clarification, G&F did get general funds for some projects involving endangered species etc. but now has to fund those projects through license sales I believe. More knowledgeable folks will clarify this I hope.
 

whip

New Member
Oct 26, 2013
5
0
License fees do go directly to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. However the money is divided among all department programs. Non game and game programs all receive funding from the increase. So your right not 100% of the elk license increase goes to elk management. However in my opinion all of these programs are important in the big picture of conserving the Wyoming Wildlife resource. Once again I'm a working guy and do understand the hardship that license increases place on all of us. I have no problem with nonresidents hunting here in WY and feel they should have the opportunity to enjoy our resources also. It does cost more to live here and for those of us living here it is all about working together as a community. Many of us are volunteer First Responders Fire and EMS,who give up much of our free time to help others in our small communities as part of the price we pay to live here. I just paid $700 for those bucking horse license plates for my truck. I pay property and sales tax in WY year round. Most WY citizens recognize and appreciate the donations visiting hunters make to our local economies also. But the cost of conserving and managing wildlife is constantly increasing and those who benefit the most from the efforts of the WY Game and Fish Dept are hunters and anglers. I believe we have an obligation to help fund these efforts. If Montana or Idaho are a better deal I totally understand and as a nonresident I would take advantage of the opportunity. Im proud of the wildlife resource here in WY and believe its worth the extra cost. You may not see it that way and that is your right.
 
Last edited:

Bonecollector

Veteran member
Mar 9, 2014
5,799
3,573
Ohio
I agree that we all need to support the efforts to preserve wildlife and the right to hunt. I believe some of the money is probably not allocated properly, but that's just government. I do feel that resident fees should also have increased to some extent in an effort to also assist in wildlife preservation/management.
In large, I believe the increases will only effect those who were going to START putting in for moose, bison & goat. Those just starting the PP process are additional income and those already in the PP race have little choice but to continue.
This may affect a large group of folks in the draw in 2018 due to folks being upset and 'cashing-in'.
The increases also may effect the monies folks can donate to organizations like RMEF, etc., in turn causing a negative effect on those organizations. It may also increase poaching by non-resident hunters and those hunting/crossing state borders. I guess the positive of this will be more episodes of Warden (fill in the state).
What I do know is that the previous costs were already tough for me to achieve a wife and 3 kids. Now, I'll really have to plan and perhaps will not make it out every year. And I was only hunting lope, deer and elk all DIY.
 

Doe Nob

Very Active Member
Feb 21, 2011
565
0
Houston, TX
I'm all for everyone paying their fare share. I don't mind paying a bunch as a NR. It's when all the increases are borne on the back of the NR that it sticks in my craw - especially for a state with a lot of FEDERAL land. That's all of ours that we pay for resident or not. BLM and Forest Service is as much mine as yours. Maybe everyone that wants to hunt any Federal Land should pay NR tag fees.

Then in WY outfitter welfare for wilderness areas - another insult.

It's just us bitching though, the systems are too entrenched to change. They will continue to milk the non-represented class for funds until they cease participating - and as everyone has said we are a WAYS off from that. And I'm a hypocrite, I'm not going anywhere, I'll still apply for deer/elk/antelope/mountain goat. Just did a 10 day elk hunt in NM, Tag fees at $800 were still only about 30% of the cost of the hunt coming from out of state - wholly DIY.

One thing it does do IMO is create bigger creep at the top and hollows out the middle. People think "if I'm paying that much for a tag, I only want to hunt the best units in the state." They don't apply for a middling unit or one w/ less than great success rates. I think everywhere will all end up like NM in 20 years - demand keeps growing and supply keeps shrinking.
 
Last edited:

Fish

Active Member
Jul 8, 2011
319
3
WA State
I really don't think the rate increase is all that bad and that's coming from a guy that will retire nest year. I will try to burn my 6 deer points in the special draw next year and at 67 yrs old, I may not buy any more deer points but will do so for antelope. I'll also buy a left over cow elk tag when I'm low on elk meat. No such thing as leftover cow tags here in WA.

As far as all the WY licence fee monies staying in the game dept program, that is a great thing. Here in WA all our game fees go into the general fund and the game dept gets its budget weather it's good or bad for them. I know my license fees may go to fund safe heroin shoot up sites and fund so called shelter for the drunken and drugged out homeless bastards on the streets of many WA towns and cities. What a great way to use our hunting and fishing license monies.

Good job WY, WA state has a lot to learn from you.
 

whip

New Member
Oct 26, 2013
5
0
Doe Nob I agree with the comment on not being able to hunt the wilderness without a guide. However management of wildlife in Wyoming regardless if its Federal, State or private land is a function of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Wildlife by definition belongs to the state. Yellowstone is the only exception that I'm aware of in our state. It was a park before Wyoming became a state. As for the episodes of Wardens increasing they don't film in Wyoming. But with all the new computer shared information about residency across multiple states they are making more and more cases on guys who have attempted to take that short cut. Personally they should make it a high Misdemeanor with one year in jail and a max fine. As a resident I will happily pay to help fund the 1 year state paid vacation.
 

88man

Active Member
Feb 20, 2014
238
25
Pa
I really don't want to pay a penny more as it is very expensive allready. However, Wyoming is a great state and I believe does a great job in managing their wildlife. I would be willing to pay 50% more if the fee's went directly to securing more public access and habitat improvement.
 

ScottR

Eastmans' Staff / Moderator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2014
7,227
2,152
www.eastmans.com
I really don't want to pay a penny more as it is very expensive allready. However, Wyoming is a great state and I believe does a great job in managing their wildlife. I would be willing to pay 50% more if the fee's went directly to securing more public access and habitat improvement.
Having met a few of the guys who secure walk in areas and access, they work diligently to secure places for us to hunt. Some areas have better access than others but access is a top priority.
 

BuzzH

Very Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
821
700
Couple things on the latest fee increase.

For starters, the fee increase bill actually cost the Wyoming GF about 1 million in revenue. What most people didn't know, is that the bill had a footnote that if the bill passed, then all general funds were removed from the GF budget (about 4 million). If the fee increase bill would have failed, then the general fund money would continue to go to the GF budget. Myself and other BHA board members were in contact with the GF and Legislature and tried to kill this bill. The bad thing is, most of the Legislature didn't even understand their own bill...and that's a huge problem, IMO. I sent out last minute emails to the entire Legislative body to kill it...wasn't in the cards. All they cared about was the savings to the general funds, and a vast majority of the fee increases were to the NR's. I worked closely with a Senator to amend the bill to something that would have made a lot more sense, it failed in committee by just a couple votes.

The legislature got this one wrong, big-time. All they did was "save" the general fund money that was going to the GF and saddle sportsmen (in particular NR's) with higher fees to make up the short-fall...that's pure BS, IMO. The legislature wants a heavy hand in wildlife management but doesn't want to pay for any of the tab with general fund money.

I'm all about increasing fees, both R and NR, when it means an increase in over-all funding to the Department for better management, more wardens, access, etc. etc. etc.

But, this bill and the associated fees didn't increase revenue, and in fact, decreased over-all GF revenue.

That said, I heard that the GF department is solvent for the next 4 years, after that additional funding is going to be needed. I would guess another fee increase will happen then more than likely.
 

rcfireninja

Active Member
Mar 3, 2014
389
12
Rapid City, SD
Couple things on the latest fee increase.

For starters, the fee increase bill actually cost the Wyoming GF about 1 million in revenue. What most people didn't know, is that the bill had a footnote that if the bill passed, then all general funds were removed from the GF budget (about 4 million). If the fee increase bill would have failed, then the general fund money would continue to go to the GF budget. Myself and other BHA board members were in contact with the GF and Legislature and tried to kill this bill. The bad thing is, most of the Legislature didn't even understand their own bill...and that's a huge problem, IMO. I sent out last minute emails to the entire Legislative body to kill it...wasn't in the cards. All they cared about was the savings to the general funds, and a vast majority of the fee increases were to the NR's. I worked closely with a Senator to amend the bill to something that would have made a lot more sense, it failed in committee by just a couple votes.

The legislature got this one wrong, big-time. All they did was "save" the general fund money that was going to the GF and saddle sportsmen (in particular NR's) with higher fees to make up the short-fall...that's pure BS, IMO. The legislature wants a heavy hand in wildlife management but doesn't want to pay for any of the tab with general fund money.

I'm all about increasing fees, both R and NR, when it means an increase in over-all funding to the Department for better management, more wardens, access, etc. etc. etc.

But, this bill and the associated fees didn't increase revenue, and in fact, decreased over-all GF revenue.

That said, I heard that the GF department is solvent for the next 4 years, after that additional funding is going to be needed. I would guess another fee increase will happen then more than likely.
Thank you for your work on this and the insight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk