Wyoming 90/10

[jimbires]

I see both sides to this . I'm glad I don't have a bunch of points .

Wyoming Passes 90/10: The Worst Article You’ll Read This Year - Eastmans' Official Blog | Mule Deer, Antelope, Elk Hunting and Bowhunting Magazine | Eastmans' Hunting Journals

If you are one of the nearly 12,000 nonresident sheep or moose applicants in th

blog.eastmans.com

 

[DrMike]

It is a tough pill to swallow for those who have been trying to accumulate points, for years in some instances. However, it seems as if it is the eternal challenge of too many requests for too few resources. The WY authorities have first responsibility to their own tax payers.

 

[SJB358]

It is a tough one to take but as Mike said, Wyoming is top of the heap for game management and their residents pay a Decent portion of the bill.

 

[Bruce Mc]

It seems to me since non-residents pay for more than 60% of the game and fish budget in Wyoming perhaps we should be given a bit more consideration.

 

[SJB358]

Bruce how do you look that up? I’d like to see how much res vs non res pay into the system myself.

 

[Bruce Mc]

Guy Eastman stated so in that article.

 

[SJB358]

Gotcha. I need to read closer. Sorry bout that.

 

[Bruce Mc]

I think perhaps New Mexico saved themselves a lot of grief by not having preference points. It came in handy when they dropped non resident quotas.

 

[DrMike]

It seems to me that no matter what the WWTF did, it was sure to be problematic. None of us like change, and it seems as if something needed to change. We face something of a similar challenge here in Canada as hunters and fishermen enjoy new challenges, but the owner of the resource (the province in our case, and the state in the case of the American situation) has the right to set the conditions for use of the resource. It just all seems to be a mess without a solution that is acceptable to those using the resource.

 

[Richracer1]

Copied/pasted from the article: "Of the total $80 million budget, nonresident hunters and fisherman account for more than 60% of the revenue".

 

[jimbires]

like I said when I posted the link , I see both sides of this . I agree something needed done , and anything that's done hurts a group .

 

[Bruce Mc]

Of course the game and fish aren't the only ones who will be short of funds. There are a lot of businesses that depend on revenue from out of state hunters.

 

[JD338]

Rather disappointing indeed. I applied for moose this year with 18 pp. Looks like the odds will be rather slim for drawing a tag.
It would be nice if these pp would be transferrable. My 4 year old grandson would have a better chance of drawing some day.

JD338

 

[TKessel]

It seems to me since non-residents pay for more than 60% of the game and fish budget in Wyoming perhaps we should be given a bit more consideration.

It’s actually closer to 80%. I’m an outfitter and non residents fund most of our game and fish. Most residents don’t know this and will figure it out when we all have a huge increase in our resident licenses. There is no easy fix for the problem.

 

[Dr. Vette]

I think part of the issue is that they removed some of the random draw tags.
If you've been putting in for 20 years with a "chance" via the random draw, but it now takes 35 since the random draw is gone, you and everyone below you is going to drop out of the points system. It's also some of the reason there "may" be lawsuits, because the chance for so many now went from "low" to "zero."

 

[Bruce Mc]

Boy, this topic is going crazy on other hunting forums. I have a thought that I wouldn't dare pose on other forums but I'll speak it here as the response will hopefully be more informed. Here goes, most court cases regarding hunting by non residents on public lands have been decided by a ruling of no fundamental right to hunt. Wyoming amended their constitution a number of years ago making hunting a fundamental right. Would that open up Wyoming to another round of law suits because their system essentially prevents non residents from drawing some tags and the court can't rule no fundamental right?

 

[gbflyer]

My son is a resident there. While I have no interest in hunting for or accumulating points for moose or sheep in Wyoming, it’s sorta troubling to read they are considering it for deer and elk as well. Be that as it may, it’s their state. The state I live in certainly has no moral high ground to stand on with regard to treatment of its NR hunters and the way they protect their registered big game guides.

For me I’d still be happy just to tag along with my son if he gets a resident tag.

 

[JD338]

I have 18 preference points and applied for e moose tag earlier this year. Very disappointed if my preference point investment becomes null and void. I understand their thinking but still a lot of money they have taken from me.

JD338

 

[Dr. Vette]

I have 18 preference points and applied for e moose tag earlier this year. Very disappointed if my preference point investment becomes null and void. I understand their thinking but still a lot of money they have taken from me.

JD338

I agree.

We have a hunt for elk in CO this fall that was booked before this change, but are looking at using our WY elk points next year if they're truly going to move to the 90/10 rule for elk.

 

[CT.HNTR]

So my perspective here may be off as I am not a subject matter expect regarding who pays to maintain federal lands but it seems to me that non-residents should not have to pay higher fees or have hunting access limited over residents on federally owned property. ALL tax payers in this country own federal land not the state. If all taxes payers in the country are footing the bill then they should all have the same access and pay the same fees. I can see access and fees being different for non-residents on state owned property but I feel hunting access and fees on federal land should be equal for everybody.