Wyo Task Force - Nonres Comments!

338 dude

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
3,100
Location
Tn
Just throwing out an observation don’t intend to ruffle any feathers but if we all really think about where this is headed we will eventually be just like other places where you must be simply rich to hunt it will not be for the common man forever
 

CF96

Active Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
44
Location
Northeast Oregon
Why don't you educated me please. Because this is just one thing I found on a quick Google search.View attachment 284222
That comes to $17.55 per year for a cow and calf. Pretty dang cheap !
Also note that the $1.35 price was set as a minimum in 1986. That's 35 years ago and the price is still the same
Yes I agree prices can go up and they can pay more, but as a farmer and rancher I get tired of prices going up and never getting more. As for cattle ruining animal habitat, it’s always cattle and the rancher that get blamed for Mismanagement. They do make water improvements that the hunter sits on to hunt. Use roads salt licks and other improvements on there hunts. Not saying there are not bad ranchers but we have bad eggs in everything.
We farm and also have 200 head of elk on our property year around. The wolf and other predators push them down and game and fish want most elk killed. We like them and get along great with them. Also gives elk for tag holders to hunt when disperse. Also for this thread, the cow and rancher are not changing tag quotas.
 

svgreg

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2021
Messages
126
Location
America
Just throwing out an observation don’t intend to ruffle any feathers but if we all really think about where this is headed we will eventually be just like other places where you must be simply rich to hunt it will not be for the common man forever
You are correct. That's where everything is headed. And this will surely anger some folks, but it's called unrestricted capitalism. When there's a limited resource (more demand than there is supply), the ones with the most money win, period.
 

milo-2

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
1,292
Location
Gillette, Wy
If Wyoming was to make it about the Deer Elk Antelope ect. They would quit renting the land to ranchers for so cheap . Get the cattle off the lands so the native species wouldn't have to compete for food and water.
BLM owns 48% of WY lands, BLM is part of the US Dept of the Interior. State of WY owns just under 6% of the land mostly in the form of state school sections. I am not sure what pct the US Forest Service owns. State of WY or WG&F has no control over federal leases.
Your statement has little merit, as you assume all BLM lands are wildlife meccas. Coyotes and jack rabbits will inhabit about anything, antelope, mule deer, elk and whitetail deer have more specialized needs.
No question that gov leased lands can offer a business model the majority of us will never be afforded, but I hope you are not assuming most lessee's are not good stewards of the land and wildlife. Most idiots know what side of the bread is buttered.
Without researching, I want to say WY is in one of the worst droughts I have seen in my 42 yrs here, and yes, come winter, our wildlife is going suffer big time.
Also, when has gov offering up playgrounds for people ended well? Give an inch, take a mile. A lease holder of Fed lands has way more vested interest in said land than hunters as a collective group ever will.
 

gusd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
414
Location
WI.
For you to say I assume all BLM lands are wildlife meccas is quite naive. I have spent a good bit of time in Wyoming and know that not every area holds every sort of wildlife.
What I do know is that almost every area that I have been to in Wyoming has cattle on it
when has gov offering up playgrounds for people ended well? Give an inch, take a mile.
Do you think that renting land from the government for the same price as what it cost 35 years ago is not "taking a mile" ? I know the ranchers lobby the government to "keep the land affordable"
Hence the reason they are still paying 1986 prices.
What are private lands renting for in Wyoming?
I bought land 18 years ago in WI. I have been renting to farmers all 18 years and in that time land rent gone from $75 an acre to $225 It TRIPLED! in 18 years

As for the drought I did a quick google search to find. No worries on the ranchers part if they want there are plenty of grants and programs to help them. With these government funded programs and Insurance policies the ranchers will do alright it is not the first drought and won't be the last.
 

milo-2

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
1,292
Location
Gillette, Wy
For you to say I assume all BLM lands are wildlife meccas is quite naive. I have spent a good bit of time in Wyoming and know that not every area holds every sort of wildlife.
What I do know is that almost every area that I have been to in Wyoming has cattle on it

Do you think that renting land from the government for the same price as what it cost 35 years ago is not "taking a mile" ? I know the ranchers lobby the government to "keep the land affordable"
Hence the reason they are still paying 1986 prices.
What are private lands renting for in Wyoming?
I bought land 18 years ago in WI. I have been renting to farmers all 18 years and in that time land rent gone from $75 an acre to $225 It TRIPLED! in 18 years

As for the drought I did a quick google search to find. No worries on the ranchers part if they want there are plenty of grants and programs to help them. With these government funded programs and Insurance policies the ranchers will do alright it is not the first drought and won't be the last.
LOL, I never said there may not be some inequities when it comes to leasing federal lands. I myself do not really complain about crap out of my control. State of WY relies on agriculture tax revenue, the more ranchers make, bigger the tax base. I am fine with that.
I myself really don't have a dog in this fight, I have not big game hunted in WY since 1995. As I said in my first post, this is a pipe dream for resident hunters, not only do license fees generate income, non resident hunters boost our tourism industry. This is far from a single front fight for resident hunters.
 

jimss

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
163
What's spooky is that landowners and outfitters have quite a few member ties on the Task Force. What happened in New Mexico could easily happen in Wyo. Those that enjoy DIY hunting are the real losers in this battle. First it was 90/10 for the big 5. This meeting is deer, elk, and antelope. I'm sure the outfitters and landowners have something up their sleeves...so stay tuned!
 

Triple BB

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
645
Location
Wyoming
As long as the landowners/outfitters take their cut from non-rezi tags and they still go 90/10, its a win for Wyoming residents which is what this is all about...
 

338 dude

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
3,100
Location
Tn
As long as the landowners/outfitters take their cut from non-rezi tags and they still go 90/10, its a win for Wyoming residents which is what this is all about...
Is it a win ? remember for every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction only time will tell
 

gusd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
414
Location
WI.
If it results in more residents getting tags, its a win...
For the narrow minded with no clue of reality it's a win. The reality is that is non's are footing the bill. Cut us out of the equation and it will hurt. The world revolves around money and that's what us non Residents provide.
 

Wedgy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
2,440
If they cut the NR tags by half they can cut the revenue in half and it looks to be about $20 million or ~35% of their budget. Unless outfitters get the tags and sell them to non residents and make some of it back that way. No government agencies budget ever goes down, they always get bigger.
 

Triple BB

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
645
Location
Wyoming
For the amount of non resident licenses be lost, residents can make up that difference with small minor license fee increases. Its already being addressed. I'll gladly pay more. Spent $7000 hunting my home state last year. I've maintained they should take those extra non rezi tags and make them a special for residents at the same non resident license fees. Guarantee demand will still outstrip supply. Lots of options to make up any lost revenue.
For the narrow minded with no clue of reality it's a win. The reality is that is non's are footing the bill. Cut us out of the equation and it will hurt. The world revolves around money and that's what us non Residents provide.

Residents want 90/10 which is the new reality. Feel free to hunt yer own state if you don't like it...
 

Left Hand Dave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
380
Location
Ohio
Maybe the only solution is a state license for state and private land and a federal license for fed property. That way the state could control the licenses for the residents of the state and the feds for the fed lands. If they want 90/10 or 99/1 for the owners of the state lands so be it. That way everyone that owns the fed land would have a equal chance at hunting/using it. You would have the same chance of drawing a fed tag if you are a citizen anywhere in the us. Seems like what everyone on this thread wants fair for everyone as residents. Residents of state get treated the same for land in their state all residents of the US get treated the same for their land. Puts an end to the land use welfare.
 

Recent Posts

Top