Wyoming 90/10

[IdahoCTD]

The problem with that logic is that the state owns the wildlife in the state, weather it is on federal land or not. Your access to those federal lands cost the same but your access to the states wildlife cost you more. Even people that live in the west and hunt elsewhere pay exponentially more to hunt with less or no access to public land.

We are starting to see the problems with point systems all over the west. Many of the hardest to draw hunts are now becoming once in a lifetime type of hunts and many of the states will start to lose point revenue when people figure out its been a racket all along. Wyoming made it worse a few years back when they upped the cost for points. Combine that with a lower chance to draw in one lifetime results in less revenue. There will always be more applicants then tags so the points needed to draw won't come down much unless it ends up being 40+ years. Not many people want to spend 100/year for the premium species to buy a point they may not live long enough to cash in on. Better off to put 100/year in Amazon, Tesla, Apple, etc stock and buy a hunt or two in 20-30 years. If you would of bought into those stocks at the beginning you would of been able to buy tons of hunts by now.

I should draw a region G deer tag in 2-3 years and a good elk tag in 4-5 years but if they cut the deer and elk tags as well I'll get a general elk tag now. I'm not going to keep paying for 10 more years to get a good elk tag. I would wait for for the region G deer tag but after that I probably wouldn't put in for WY again. I'd rather do over the counter tags or landowner tags somewhere rather then wait 8+ years to draw a tag again. When I started putting in for deer a region G tag was only 4-5 years to draw. Now it is 8-9 years.

 

[CT.HNTR]

The problem with that logic is that the state owns the wildlife in the state, weather it is on federal land or not. Your access to those federal lands cost the same but your access to the states wildlife cost you more. Even people that live in the west and hunt elsewhere pay exponentially more to hunt with less or no access to public land.

We are starting to see the problems with point systems all over the west. Many of the hardest to draw hunts are now becoming once in a lifetime type of hunts and many of the states will start to lose point revenue when people figure out its been a racket all along. Wyoming made it worse a few years back when they upped the cost for points. Combine that with a lower chance to draw in one lifetime results in less revenue. There will always be more applicants then tags so the points needed to draw won't come down much unless it ends up being 40+ years. Not many people want to spend 100/year for the premium species to buy a point they may not live long enough to cash in on. Better off to put 100/year in Amazon, Tesla, Apple, etc stock and buy a hunt or two in 20-30 years. If you would of bought into those stocks at the beginning you would of been able to buy tons of hunts by now.

I should draw a region G deer tag in 2-3 years and a good elk tag in 4-5 years but if they cut the deer and elk tags as well I'll get a general elk tag now. I'm not going to keep paying for 10 more years to get a good elk tag. I would wait for for the region G deer tag but after that I probably wouldn't put in for WY again. I'd rather do over the counter tags or landowner tags somewhere rather then wait 8+ years to draw a tag again. When I started putting in for deer a region G tag was only 4-5 years to draw. Now it is 8-9 years.

So you may very well be correct that the state owns the wildlife but that has not been my understanding. The United States operates under what is know as the North American Model For Wildlife Conservation which can be traced back to ancient Roman law. The seven principles to this model are:

1. Wildlife resources are conserved and held in trust for all citizens
2. Commerce in dead wildlife is eliminated
3. Wildlife is allocated according to democratic rule of law
4. Wildlife may only be killed for legitimate, non-frivolous purpose
5. Every person has an equal opportunity under the law to participate in hunting and fishing
6. Scientific management is the proper means for wildlife conservation

My understand is that no person and no state owns the wildlife and that all wildlife is held in trust for all citizens. Bullet number 1 seems to confirm this. Also providing fewer tags or limited tags for non-residents is in direct conflict with bullet number 5 which calls for equal opportunity.

 

[DrMike]

The give-and-take in this discussion is truly enlightening. I appreciate the thoughtful exchange of views. One can only wonder whether those who make the decisions had the benefit of such an exchange of ideas.

 

[IdahoCTD]

That might have been how it use to be but states are responsible for all aspects of management and can set the rules as they wish now. The states still use the management aspects of the North American model of Conservation but the wildlife is the states property. The feds don't get involved unless it endangered or threatened wildlife or things like the goat removal from National Parks that they have done recently. I don't think you see many states change their ways anytime soon either. Non-resident revenue typically brings in 60-80% of the total revenue for western states. Tags for residents would have to go to about 150.00 for residents if you made everyone pay the same to keep the same total revenue. There would be a F&G commissioner lynching in this state if they tried that. There are 12,000 non-resident elk tags and over 100,000 resident elk tags. There are even more deer hunters. That would be too expensive for many people of this state to even hunt in order to give non-residents cheaper tags, not gonna happen.

 

[Charlie-NY]

I'm willing to concede that every state has a right to establish their own rules & regs with regard to wildlife management, which includes hunting. But, you've got to consider both sides of the coin when restricting non-residents. A noticeable decline in non-resident hunters actively participating in the annual harvest has a cost.

When I hunt out-of-state (or out of the country) I plan on spending a lot of money. It's not just the cost to my outfitter/guide/others in the camp. I travel early, stay in hotels, eat 3 meals/day in restaurants and spend stupid money in gift shops. I feel a little guilty leaving home all the time for my self -indulgence. I buy gifts for my wife, both of my daughters and something nice for the ladies in my office. Over all, I'm happy to support the local economies of the areas I travel through and to.

 

[IdahoCTD]

In reality the loss of revenue from the handful of tags cut for non-resident will pale compared to the loss of point revenue when they blow this up like this. 20 applicants at 100/each is about the same as the tag cost. If a tag that use to take 28 years to draw, and you take away the random option, now becomes 50 years to draw you'll see a massive loss in point revenue. Most of those tags are in the 1-2% chance of drawing range as random drawing. That means there are 50 to 100 point buyers or applicants for every successful tag applicant. That is 5000.00-10000.00 for every 2000.00+ tag drawn.

In Idaho it's always been 10% for non-residents but I would bet as the resident population in Wyoming has grown the pressure to lower the percentage has increased. That is why this has happened. The number of tags lost results in minimal loss of revenue for Wyoming Game and Fish. Now if they do it to deer and elk they will lose a huge amount of money and point revenue. The only way to make that up is to increase tag cost across the board.