HB149...60/40 take 2

Buzz, thanks for your dedication and hard work for all sportsmen that are fortunate enough to hunt in Wyoming. Most of us, including myself, will never reach and excel at the level of involvement that you have. I am lucky to visit Wyoming every year for some form of recreation and think it is the best state in the lower 48. If possible, try not to take the following statements and questions as an attack on you or the groups to which you belong.

I read your initial post and had a question concerning your reference to the NAMWC.

thank you for preserving the North American Model

Click to expand...

Where in the North American Model does it suggest that separating non-resident hunters into economic classes is a good thing? It seems that the mere existence of the regular/special split is in contradiction from everything I have read about the NAMWC with regards to hunting opportunity for all. Is it in accordance with the NAMWC because it tilts slightly towards the "lower class"?

Would the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation favor a 60/40 split towards the average sportsman? Or would it prefer a 90/10 split in favor of the average sportsman? Or perhaps eliminating the split all together since it is based solely on economic conditions?

Nr increased the dept budget this draw period by over 100k vs 2014 simply by having 200+ Additional applicants choose the special gen tag. Last year those tags dropped to the regular draw. We've reached the point where every quota balance tag is sold at the special price.

cfree said:

Buzz, thanks for your dedication and hard work for all sportsmen that are fortunate enough to hunt in Wyoming. Most of us, including myself, will never reach and excel at the level of involvement that you have. I am lucky to visit Wyoming every year for some form of recreation and think it is the best state in the lower 48. If possible, try not to take the following statements and questions as an attack on you or the groups to which you belong.

I read your initial post and had a question concerning your reference to the NAMWC. Where in the North American Model does it suggest that separating non-resident hunters into economic classes is a good thing? It seems that the mere existence of the regular/special split is in contradiction from everything I have read about the NAMWC with regards to hunting opportunity for all. Is it in accordance with the NAMWC because it tilts slightly towards the "lower class"?

Would the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation favor a 60/40 split towards the average sportsman? Or would it prefer a 90/10 split in favor of the average sportsman? Or perhaps eliminating the split all together since it is based solely on economic conditions?

Click to expand...

cfree,

I agree with you 100%, the tiered license fee structure should go and IMO, never should have happened to begin with. I have heard from people that were deeply involved at the time it passed, that the legislator that carried the legislation thinks is the worst thing he ever did. Apparently there was a major push from WYOGA to get outfitter only tags, but the Residents here showed up and packed meeting rooms. The "compromise" was the tiered license fee structure with the 40/60.

My hope over the long-haul, if we can find some alternative funding, is to completely do away with the tiered license fee structure. Put everyone back on a level playing field.

I'm tired of the outfitter give-aways and their lack of concern with anyone except their paying clients. Some of the testimony I've heard from WYOGA is pathetic, and sad at the same time. When you chuck your own kids hunting future under the bus in public testimony...to favor an aging client, well, lets just say it speaks volumes. WYOGA has no concern for the NAM, no concern for the future of the sport, and the DIY R and NR hunter is competition and the reason they cant have full control of wildlife resources. Make no mistake, the DIY R and NR crowd are the enemy to WYOGA, and they aren't afraid to go on the offensive anytime you don't agree with them.

I can assure you, if WYOGA could pass a bill tomorrow to force us all to hire an outfitter to hunt, they'd do it in a heart-beat and never give it a second thought.

Great news...pat on the back for everyone that made the effort to destroy this bill.

There's one in every group.......

I don't get Cush's statements about falling in line with other states. WY isn't the same as CO which has a lot bigger population for instance or NM which has less animals overall.

Following the neighbors is just a lazy way of managing especially if you follow Utah or one of the states that just throw out unlimited OTC tags and call it management.

I'd be interested in doing away with the tiered structure and just making an increase in all the tags to match what would essentially be the average price for all of the tags based on the current allocations.

I got to wondering the other day why states like WA even bother with harvest surveys when they just issue unlimited tags anyway? Kind of funny that they care about reporting how many animals are killed each year but don't really care about actually managing the harvest quotas or hunting pressure.

Buzz, I appreciate you keeping us NR posted on these types of bills.I sent a few emails with no response but the bill being defeated is a good enough response.Takes a couple minutes to send an email and all of us doing it has seemed to work