Get out your Wyoming wallets!!!

[Mulie87]

👍 I have a cousin in Kentuky and am looking there next year.

[GASoline71]

👍 I have a cousin in Kentuky and am looking there next year.

Getting all the meat home to WA from TN is the challenge I'm looking at.  Being able to harvest 2 bucks and 3 does in one year is pretty generous.  Not saying I'd be killing that many deer. But having that kind of opportunity would be awesome.

Gary

[jrebel]

Curious what people would think if they lived in a state that was over run with out of state hunters??  That would suck equally as bad as being the out of stater that is having to pay to play and / or have less opportunity do to less out of state tags.  I have a hard time being upset at higher prices or less opportunity in these states for people who don't live there.  If they want to maintain quality animals and decent numbers, they have to manage the amount of hunters and game. 

Everyone has the option to move to these states and make this a non issue....right?  Everyone also has the ability to work a little harder and save a little more to hunt these states.  I just can't find it in me to be upset at these states for managing their game and giving their residents higher priority. 

[mburrows]

Non resident tags are fixed and capped  in wyoming. Non resident hunter numbers haven’t increased at all but demand sure has.

[idahohuntr]

Curious what people would think if they lived in a state that was over run with out of state hunters??  That would suck equally as bad as being the out of stater that is having to pay to play and / or have less opportunity do to less out of state tags.  I have a hard time being upset at higher prices or less opportunity in these states for people who don't live there.  If they want to maintain quality animals and decent numbers, they have to manage the amount of hunters and game. 

Everyone has the option to move to these states and make this a non issue....right?  Everyone also has the ability to work a little harder and save a little more to hunt these states.  I just can't find it in me to be upset at these states for managing their game and giving their residents higher priority.

This is not an R v NR issue.  Earlier in the year when they were discussing 90/10, that would have fit the points you made above, but because the outfitters association could not get the big gov't welfare they were demanding (tag set asides) - they f'd over the residents and refused to support 90/10. 

This price increase will not increase draw odds one bit for high demand areas...except for maybe antelope for a few years and of course any hunts that are already lower demand/easier to draw.  I don't like it, but I vastly prefer it to the welfare being sought by WYOGA.

[trophyhunt]

Curious what people would think if they lived in a state that was over run with out of state hunters??  That would suck equally as bad as being the out of stater that is having to pay to play and / or have less opportunity do to less out of state tags.  I have a hard time being upset at higher prices or less opportunity in these states for people who don't live there.  If they want to maintain quality animals and decent numbers, they have to manage the amount of hunters and game. 

Everyone has the option to move to these states and make this a non issue....right?  Everyone also has the ability to work a little harder and save a little more to hunt these states.  I just can't find it in me to be upset at these states for managing their game and giving their residents higher priority.

don’t completely disagree, but I have to wonder, does this help or hurt promote hunting to younger or not rich new hunters?

[sagerat]

Curious what people would think if they lived in a state that was over run with out of state hunters??  That would suck equally as bad as being the out of stater that is having to pay to play and / or have less opportunity do to less out of state tags.  I have a hard time being upset at higher prices or less opportunity in these states for people who don't live there.  If they want to maintain quality animals and decent numbers, they have to manage the amount of hunters and game. 

Everyone has the option to move to these states and make this a non issue....right?  Everyone also has the ability to work a little harder and save a little more to hunt these states.  I just can't find it in me to be upset at these states for managing their game and giving their residents higher priority.

don’t completely disagree, but I have to wonder, does this help or hurt promote hunting to younger or not rich new hunters?

   In the long run it’s going to take its toll for sure. It shouldn’t be about money but that’s the road we’re all going down…

[Jpmiller]

Curious what people would think if they lived in a state that was over run with out of state hunters??  That would suck equally as bad as being the out of stater that is having to pay to play and / or have less opportunity do to less out of state tags.  I have a hard time being upset at higher prices or less opportunity in these states for people who don't live there.  If they want to maintain quality animals and decent numbers, they have to manage the amount of hunters and game. 

Everyone has the option to move to these states and make this a non issue....right?  Everyone also has the ability to work a little harder and save a little more to hunt these states.  I just can't find it in me to be upset at these states for managing their game and giving their residents higher priority.

don’t completely disagree, but I have to wonder, does this help or hurt promote hunting to younger or not rich new hunters?

   In the long run it’s going to take its toll for sure. It shouldn’t be about money but that’s the road we’re all going down…

Is the argument there should be no special draw, or that the special draw should only be more expensive to the point that it's not prohibitive to you? I don't mean any offense or to be rude but I'd the argument is it should be there but you don't want yourself priced out of it that's a hard position to defend in my book. Not aiming this at anyone in particular.

[haftard]

ehh i think you guys are making a bigger deal out of this then it really is. anyone who was willing to shell out 1200 bucks for a elk tag wont wince at the increase.

we should be channeling your anger towards Texas who still considers elk as exotic.

[dvolmer]

there is no doubt that this is a very complex issue with many factors affecting the outcome.  Lots of opinions and ideas.  Sometimes the facts can tell the best story even though they don't always tell the story the way we want to hear it.  Some have made a lot of comments that are very interesting and thought provoking.

The way I see the facts is that the animals belong to the residents of the state. The average person hunting in his or her state of residency should have the opportunity to hunt the animals that reside in that state at a reasonable and customary cost.  In pretty much all of the states that I can think of, this is the case.  Some states more than others but no one is going into the poor house to hunt the state they reside in and everyone has the opportunity to hunt what the state they chose to live in has to offer.  When you go hunt in other states, you are hunting other peoples animals and their property.  Here in Washington we don't have to deal with out of state hunters.  Anyone that wants to hunt this state and doesn't have some special reason, like private property or a personal reason, is crazy.  Way to many hunters, not near enough public land, and moderate to low animal numbers compared to amount of hunters in the field.  Just imagine if you have been putting in for a big bull permit in Washington were you reside for 25 years like a lot of you have with zero success and they were holding out and giving 20 some percent of those tags to non-residents. People would be going nuts!  Just imagine if one or two of the Wenaha tags or Dayton tags were held for non-residents.  Like some of you have said, if you want to hunt Wyoming for cheap then move there.   No one is stopping you.  Wyoming has its problems.  Lower wages, poor schools, crazy weather, and I could go on and on.  We choose what we want in life with its advantages and its disadvantages and that includes our professions and were we want to live.

Now with all that said, I hate to see the price increases.  But I also think of what I would want if I lived in Wyoming and those animals belonged to me and all of the other residents of the state.  Maybe I would want to get rid of all out of state hunters and get two or three buck and bull tags a year???  Problem is that a large state like Wyoming with just over 500,000 total residents cant support a decent game dept and manage the animals with such limited resources.  So My personal preference if I was a resident would be for my state to sell the NR tags at the highest cost that they could bring and lower the out of state tags down to a number that would just bring in the revenue to have a quality game dept that would support the animals and the hunters in the state of Wyoming.  So you can see why the push for a 90/10 and a push for higher tag costs is there.  Wyoming could easily go to 90/10 and double the cost of the 10% NR tags they would sell and still sell all of the tags and receive the same amount of revenue or even more they are receiving now.  Now as a Washington state resident I don't like that at all personally, but then again, they are not my animals.  They belong to the residents of Wyoming.  Man this hurts me to say that but it is the truth.  We need to empathize with them and put ourselves in their shoes.  Just some thoughts from someone that doesn't know much and tries to come up with ideas to sell it to my wife that we need to move there!  By the way, it isn't working at all!!!

[jasnt]

there is no doubt that this is a very complex issue with many factors affecting the outcome.  Lots of opinions and ideas.  Sometimes the facts can tell the best story even though they don't always tell the story the way we want to hear it.  Some have made a lot of comments that are very interesting and thought provoking.

The way I see the facts is that the animals belong to the residents of the state. The average person hunting in his or her state of residency should have the opportunity to hunt the animals that reside in that state at a reasonable and customary cost.  In pretty much all of the states that I can think of, this is the case.  Some states more than others but no one is going into the poor house to hunt the state they reside in and everyone has the opportunity to hunt what the state they chose to live in has to offer.  When you go hunt in other states, you are hunting other peoples animals and their property.  Here in Washington we don't have to deal with out of state hunters.  Anyone that wants to hunt this state and doesn't have some special reason, like private property or a personal reason, is crazy.  Way to many hunters, not near enough public land, and moderate to low animal numbers compared to amount of hunters in the field.  Just imagine if you have been putting in for a big bull permit in Washington were you reside for 25 years like a lot of you have with zero success and they were holding out and giving 20 some percent of those tags to non-residents. People would be going nuts!  Just imagine if one or two of the Wenaha tags or Dayton tags were held for non-residents.  Like some of you have said, if you want to hunt Wyoming for cheap then move there.   No one is stopping you.  Wyoming has its problems.  Lower wages, poor schools, crazy weather, and I could go on and on.  We choose what we want in life with its advantages and its disadvantages and that includes our professions and were we want to live.

Now with all that said, I hate to see the price increases.  But I also think of what I would want if I lived in Wyoming and those animals belonged to me and all of the other residents of the state.  Maybe I would want to get rid of all out of state hunters and get two or three buck and bull tags a year???  Problem is that a large state like Wyoming with just over 500,000 total residents cant support a decent game dept and manage the animals with such limited resources.  So My personal preference if I was a resident would be for my state to sell the NR tags at the highest cost that they could bring and lower the out of state tags down to a number that would just bring in the revenue to have a quality game dept that would support the animals and the hunters in the state of Wyoming.  So you can see why the push for a 90/10 and a push for higher tag costs is there.  Wyoming could easily go to 90/10 and double the cost of the 10% NR tags they would sell and still sell all of the tags and receive the same amount of revenue or even more they are receiving now.  Now as a Washington state resident I don't like that at all personally, but then again, they are not my animals.  They belong to the residents of Wyoming.  Man this hurts me to say that but it is the truth.  We need to empathize with them and put ourselves in their shoes.  Just some thoughts from someone that doesn't know much and tries to come up with ideas to sell it to my wife that we need to move there!  By the way, it isn't working at all!!!

Well said. 

[blackveltbowhunter]

I agree dvolmer. If you want to get mad at the KiNGS deer, direct your anger at hunting ranches, leases, permit fees, and any other for profit market directed toward directing money utilizing a public resource toward a sole proprietor and not the general public as a whole.

[ctwiggs1]

Wyoming knows what they've got.  If I were a citizen of WY, I'd push to jump these things up to the very edge of the elasticity for non residents. 

As a non-resident... bummer.  Then again, I don't do special draws so it doesn't affect me (yet) 

[Stein]

Nobody is discussing changing the amount of tags offered to NR hunters.  Thus, there won't be more or less hunters in the field whether this goes through or not.  The only question is cost, or more critically whether there should be a tiered system where someone can pay a bunch of money and get better access to public animals largely on public land.

The question that isn't asked is whether the allocation of a public wildlife resource should be to the highest bidder or if it should be made available at a cost that allows wider participation?  You could argue there are other options, but a US citizen in Florida isn't going to hunt elk at home just like the WY resident isn't going to catch Grouper in the Wind River or dig razor clams on the Pacific Ocean.

If WY wanted to limit the number of NR tags to allow more opportunity for residents, that wouldn't make me happy but I would completely understand.  Instituting a tiered system where wealthy people get to cut in front of people without the means is something I can't get in support of and I don't think it will be positive for the hunting community in general.

In my mind, it's the same problem we are looking at with the Discovery Pass, NW Forest Pass, WDFW pass, whatever other pass, sticker and what not.  Historically, the state paid for the management of their lands and resources and the people used it for little to no charge.  Now, the state doesn't want to pay, so it's passed directly onto the user.  This results in higher fees along with pricing people out of what used to be near universal access.  The wildlife agencies get fewer and fewer dollars from their legislatures and the result are these crazy schemes where we figure out how to justify ridiculous increase in user fees.

If fewer people participate, hunters will continue the slide and be even a lesser percentage of the population and at some point the question will be asked why do we hunt these things when it's only wealthy people running around doing grip and grins? 

We are heading toward the point where it is compared to going skiing or Disney.  Well, a bunch of people will never go to Disney because it's out of reach and I would hate for hunting and fishing to become equivalent of something many people will never be able to do.

[mcrawfordaf]

https://blog.eastmans.com/is-western-hunting-becoming-a-rich-persons-game/

It seems to me all western states are upping the price for their NR tags - special draw or not. Wouldn't it be better to keep your money at home and invest in your own state? Sure much can't be done with Inslee in office, so fine put it towards political movements to remove him so we can get sound WDFW commissioners on the board.

And there seems to be this idea that hunter populations are going down. Tell that to the pumpkin patches of 121 and 117.

https://www.gohunt.com/content/the-life/hunter-numbers-dwindling-across-the-us--not-in-the-west

So what if a state wants to get more $$$ from folks who have the means to travel out of state to hunt    especially for a special draw. And I see the argument that it limits youth hunters. Should youth hunters really be applying for these special draws? Or are the parents of the youth hunters upset?

I've been accumulating points for WY for antelope with my brother for a few years now as well. But we're going for a normal NR tag - no special draw.