With my moose point confirmation notice I got a special announcement that Wy G&F is going to raise the moose and sheep point application fee from $7 to $75 for us lowly non-residents. Deer, antelope and elk will be $40 for a point.

With draw odds real tough and with the high cost of the tag when you are lucky one day this really creats a sour note to the day. Especially since most of the hunting is on Federal lands.

That leaves me to take my money elsewhwere now.

Hello Canada! Another reason Africa remains so attractive.

Ann,

I've pretty much written Wyoming off too. It use to be my favorite destiation. I took a Shiras Moose there in 2002 and was primed to reapply in 2007. You can bet that by then the cost for the permit itself will be higher as well. Between that and the fact that the Green's wolves are eating up the moose calfs as soon as they hit the ground. Canada is the better choice. I've made several trips to Newfoundland for moose and caribou.

Rich Elliott

quote:

Originally posted by Rich Elliott:
....I've made several trips to Newfoundland for moose and caribou.

Rich Elliott

My thoughts too, Rich. It's a sad, sad day when you can't afford to hunt in your own country. They can stuff the moose and sheep down the wolves throats.

Ann: Those are proposed fees; they're not in place yet. I am going to write them a letter saying almost exactly your complaint. I've been putting in for moose there since the 70's when I lived there; my wife got one in 2000. I still have property and pay taxes there, but I may sell out because it's getting too expensive to apply.

Guys, hunting on the planet Earth is becoming a rich man's sport. Also, much of it is and will be behind barbed-wire fences using planted animals. I wouldn't encourage your kids to become hunters or fisherman. There are TOO fucking many people, and it's going to get worse - 6.3 billion humans alive now, with 10.5 billion projected for 2050. The Earth can't take it, and it won't take it - something must give.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by Rich Elliott:
....I've made several trips to Newfoundland for moose and caribou.

Rich Elliott

My thoughts too, Rich. It's a sad, sad day when you can't afford to hunt in your own country. They can stuff the moose and sheep down the wolves throats.

Allow me to quote myself from the "Conservation Force" topic:

"As soon as the average Joe can't afford to purchase a non-res license there, you will lose all non-res hunter support from the average-Joe hunter. You will be left with only input from the pro-wolf and anti-hunting folks. .... Ranchers will lose more access to federal land. And federal land will be managed for the protectionists from out-of-state. Maybe the feds will even expand wilderness areas and parks for non-game species management. Then they can lock out all hunters, res and non-res alike."

Newfoundland is a nice place to hunt.

I've written my letter and it's going out in the mail today. I also wrote to my outfitters explaining my dismay. I will also send my clients north too.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
With my moose point confirmation notice I got a special announcement that Wy G&F is going to raise the moose and sheep point application fee from $7 to $75 for us lowly non-residents. Deer, antelope and elk will be $40 for a point.

With draw odds real tough and with the high cost of the tag when you are lucky one day this really creats a sour note to the day. Especially since most of the hunting is on Federal lands.

And a non resident deer license in Michigan is $138 with non resident small game license at $69 and the non resident bear license is $150. And for most, the bear license takes several years, as they are on a point system.

So what is your point, Ann? Most of the hunting in Michigan's UP is on Paper company land, who get a big tax break for allowing hunters. So it is federally funded if not owned.

I have hunted in Michigan for years and will continue to do so. As far as I am concerned, in the majority of cases, the least expense is the license. And at least with that cost I have faith that money will be put back into habitat and wildlife.

Most of the deer are not on paper company land. Michigan has State and Federal land all over and lots of it- open to all who come. My own county (Lapeer) has an enormous amount of state land. Same with the neighboring counties (Genesse, St. Clair and Oakland). And these being highly populated areas have TOO MANY DEER. Go figure.

Two bucks and UNLIMITED doe permits. We can't kill enogh of them. Most deer are killed by hunters in the lower. There is no limit on non-residents for deer licenses nor do they have to wait years to get in to hunt. Ask the one million license holders each Novemeber 15th.

Cheaper than a whitetail license in any western state too. Our corn fed deer taste better anyway. See what Illinois is doing to deer tags? Moose do not do well here, too many deer. We have no moose season.

So what's your point? Just to argue? Why do you hunt on paper company land anyway?

Michigan has over 400 wolves in the UP alone. Guess where the deer are going?

Your quote: "...in the majority of cases, the least expense is the license. ' Have you looked at what a non-res moose license costs for Wyoming? That's why I have issue with the increased point cost so did you get my "point" now? How many years on average does it take to draw a moose license there? Something tells me a lot longer than for you to draw a Michibear tag. I've personally been banking bear points since the point system started here for bears. Look out fall of 2006. I also am guessing a bear license for a non-resident to hunt Michigan is one of the least expensive in all the States.

Canada, Oh Canada send me your moose!!!

Like I said, you can keep your western moose, feed them to your wolves. No more arguements from me.

I'll keep playing the drawing game in the states where I have points built. But after I draw that's it for me. I'll just buy landowner tags and only hunt in the states that offer them or in Canada. With the new system of charging for points the landowner tags look pretty good.

I have mixed feelings on this issue. I lived/hunted in Wyoming for 16 years. A BIG reason I moved there was to be close to and experience the hunting. One of the benefits of living in that state is the close proximity to the hunting and ease in getting licenses, (it certainly isn't the wage level!).

Then comes hunting season.

I'm aware of the average resident's complaint which is what the local politicians are hearing and reacting to: Hunting pressure and competition from non-residents. I've seen areas where it looks like a parking lot of vehicles from California, Texas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Throw in a couple from Ohio and Iowa. Then the local guy runs into more and more "no trespassing" signs on ranches where he used to be able to get permission for him and his son to hunt on. Seems some outfit has leased up the hunting rights with an iron-clad contract, so somebody else can make money catering to out-of-staters who pay bucks that a local can't afford.

A few business owners like this arrangement with out-of-staters bringing in revenue for them, but otherwise very few of the locals in places like Buffalo Wyoming do. The Outfitter and Guide Association lobby for it, as they aren't going to sell many $3000 mule deer hunts to the locals.

So the local politicians hear about it from the locals who hunt/vote and make this topic a very real election issue. That's where the proposals like the increased rate for preference points come from.

And the majority of resident hunters will be happy that fewer and fewer non-residents will be coming to hunt.

Before you flame me on this, understand that I am not championing the resident's cause! But I have a good idea how many of them feel on it.

Matt,

Not a flame, this issue isn't about lowering the available tags to residents. It's about money. The quotas will always be what they are, in fact I see them changing now with the up and coming wolf population increase.

These states will always give a predetermined percentage of tags for non-residents. Some of us are not going to pay it, sure they will sell them, there's always someone who can afford it. I was patiently waiting my turn to pay $1400 for a Shiras moose license.

That's the bad thing, as already mentioned, the points cost increase just prices the average person out. It's a money maker for the state government.

quote:

That's the bad thing, as already mentioned, the points cost increase just prices the average person out. It's a money maker for the state government.

This was the first physcal year, in the history of the WG&F, that the Wyoming Game and Fish has taken state funds to support the department. In the past they managed soley on license sales and what little federal dollars came thier way.

With the increase in costs, and increased cost to manage endangerd species, ala; wolves and bears,and mice. The money has to come from some where. I don't agree on exorbitant application fees, some thing should be given in return for the $75, a fishing license, and small game license,etc; Or keep it at $10 or something. Arizona gives a hunting license
with the point doesn't it?

We pay $7 for our application fee. And then the cost of the tag. I would bet that the cost of returning my tag fee, the check cut and sent back to me, is more than the $7.

Ann,

Why don't you look into Colorado instead? All preference points are $3 for both residents and non-residents. We also give 40% of tags to non-residents. Colorado is probably the most non-resident friendly of the western states.

Besides, if you pull the tag, especially in areas 6 and 17, I'll show you where to take a big bull moose. No charge, just a friendly gesture.

Mac

MAC,

What a wonderful offer! Thank you, I really appreciate it. I guess I over looked that Colorado had moose!

I have tried to draw a moose license in Wy. since 1976. My wife drew one in 2000. I drew a Sheep license in the 70's as a resident. I still own a residence in Casper and pay taxes there, but I will get screwed just like the rest of the non-residents. I've enjoyed going hunting almost every year in Wy., but with these changes I doubt that will continue.

When my wife got her moose in 2000, it took us 10 days to find a Bull. If I had had a Grizzly license, It would have been easy. A guy got mauled close to where our camp was, and Griz fed on our moose gutpile. Also, a friend's deer gutpile was cleaned up within a couple of hours near our camp. The predator to moose ratio is out of control.

I use to think a hunt to Africa was a little expensive. But it is looking better and better.

I am singing the Oh Canada and Africa tune myself.

I have wanted a nice Moose and Elk for my trophy room, but I think the Elk is out and Oh Canada is where I will go for the Moose.

I've been following the resident vs. non-resident debate in this form for the past couple months. The xenophobic attitude of some of the posters on this form really shocks me at time.

I have a friend who owns a ranch in Eastern Montana where I *try* and hunt every year with three other friends. For those of you who live there, I think you can appreciate that even though cattle and sheep prices are pretty good right now, the drought has been really hard on these people, as they've been forced to import a lot of hay. My friend spent $150K on hay last year to get his stock through the winter.

On the years when we manage to draw deer tags, we give him $8000 to let us hunt his ranch. For the 3-4 days we're there, he doesn't let anyone else hunt. If we draw antelope tags as well, he gets an extra $2000. For the other 45+ days of the hunting season, he's more than happy to let the locals hunt his land. That $8-10K makes a difference to him. We didn't draw our deer tags this year and I don't know if I really want to drive 3000 miles just to shoot an antelope.

That being the case, his other alternative is to lease his ranch to an outfitter, who's offered him $14K/year. If he does that, none of the locals will get to hunt that ranch. This is a simple matter of economics; the money for that hay has to come from somewhere. And the locals aren't going to give him $10K a year.

There must be a lot more democrats out west than I thought, because a lot of posters on this form really seem to believe in entitlement. The bottom line is that ranchers need the money from the game animals on their lands, game departments need non-resident license fees to run, and without non-resident hunters that money is going to go away.

Pete

I'm getting a real charge from some of the posters on this thread!! They make it sound like they're giving away free moose hunts in Canada. The last I checked, moose hunts were going for $3-$4 K up there. I go to several sporting shows every January and February(I live in the northeast) and speak with many Canadian outfitters. Some outfitters even want 2 hunters per 1 moose tag. What's that all about? So if you and a friend each wanted a moose, you would have to commit to 2 years and about $8K. No thanks, I'll keep putting in for Maine and Wyoming, or maybe someday go to Alaska. Besides, I won't have to pay a fee just to bring my gun into some country where they don't want Americans anyways, except for our money.

Amen bowhuntrrl. I use to hunt Canada almost yearly but it will be a cold day in H*ll when I go back. I want a color phase black bear and know Canada offers the best opportunity but will just try western states.

quote:

Originally posted by bowhuntrrl:
I'm getting a real charge from some of the posters on this thread!! They make it sound like they're giving away free moose hunts in Canada. The last I checked, moose hunts were going for $3-$4 K up there. I go to several sporting shows every January and February(I live in the northeast) and speak with many Canadian outfitters. Some outfitters even want 2 hunters per 1 moose tag. What's that all about? So if you and a friend each wanted a moose, you would have to commit to 2 years and about $8K. No thanks, I'll keep putting in for Maine and Wyoming, or maybe someday go to Alaska. Besides, I won't have to pay a fee just to bring my gun into some country where they don't want Americans anyways, except for our money.

bowhuntrrl you may be missing the point. Not one person here said free. The opportunity to hunt a moose is better and they appreciate the hunters and money we bring to Canada. As far as the just wanting the money, what are the Western States wanting? They want more money and for us to have to pay high point fees and not have a good chance at a draw with limited tags for non-residents.
This argument has been dragged out to exhaustion and will not change, so we choose another alternative and still we get slammed for our choices. I guess we should not be able to hunt anywhere other than our own State before you are happy.

quote:

Originally posted by talentrec:
I've been following the resident vs. non-resident debate in this form for the past couple months. The xenophobic attitude of some of the posters on this form really shocks me at time.

I have a friend who owns a ranch in Eastern Montana where I *try* and hunt every year with three other friends. For those of you who live there, I think you can appreciate that even though cattle and sheep prices are pretty good right now, the drought has been really hard on these people, as they've been forced to import a lot of hay. My friend spent $150K on hay last year to get his stock through the winter.

On the years when we manage to draw deer tags, we give him $8000 to let us hunt his ranch. For the 3-4 days we're there, he doesn't let anyone else hunt. If we draw antelope tags as well, he gets an extra $2000. For the other 45+ days of the hunting season, he's more than happy to let the locals hunt his land. That $8-10K makes a difference to him. We didn't draw our deer tags this year and I don't know if I really want to drive 3000 miles just to shoot an antelope.

That being the case, his other alternative is to lease his ranch to an outfitter, who's offered him $14K/year. If he does that, none of the locals will get to hunt that ranch. This is a simple matter of economics; the money for that hay has to come from somewhere. And the locals aren't going to give him $10K a year.

There must be a lot more democrats out west than I thought, because a lot of posters on this form really seem to believe in entitlement. The bottom line is that ranchers need the money from the game animals on their lands, game departments need non-resident license fees to run, and without non-resident hunters that money is going to go away.

Pete

Very good post.

quote:

Originally posted by tasunkawitko:

Well thought out post. Nobody is here boohooing, just stating fact. No need to be a troll or turn this into another useless thread.

redhawk - you weren't stating fact. you were pissing and moaning. check your post. it is filled with "i think"s.

quote:

Originally posted by tasunkawitko:
redhawk - you weren't stating fact. you were pissing and moaning. check your post. it is filled with "i think"s.

And what is your point? Because I plan to spend my money in other countries, it is called pissing a moaning? Was it just my post you have a problem with or did any others not deserve your quality reply? Don't be upset because we can afford to hunt in other places besides our home State.

Just because some of us can afford to hunt all over, does not mean we have to be frugal with our money and just pay the prices. Your State is not the only game in town. We hear you have to pay to play, but I guess we will go where we are welcome.

But thank you for your concern.

redhawk -

the fact is that when the interests of residents come into conflict with the interests of nonresidents, i believe that the interests of residents should win out; after all, we are the ones who have to live here, pay taxes and support what little economy these states have after you (not YOU personally, but the typical nonres) go back to your cushy job and big house. in a perfect world, things would be like they used to be, and these issues wouldn't exist; unfortunately, state agenices and landowners (farmers and ranchers) are hurting bad out here, and shit rolls downhill. i would prefer it if it wasn't turning into such a rich man's sport, but if someone is going to have to pay such wild fees, i would have to choose the nonresident over the resident.

look at it this way: when people are paying such huge "trespass fees" (bribes) to landowners, the local guy gets screwed, so it evens out. luckily, where i live, there is so much public and open-access land that when i am unable to hunt on private land (which is rare), the public land available is usually excellent and full of opportunities. it still doesn't change the fact that when state agencies see some nonresident paying 14k to hunt on some guy's little plot of land, they are going to jump on that wagon and bring the fees up, because the fees are still a very small part of the hunting trip. it's the same logic that many bullet snobs use to justify premium bullets on such thin-skinned animals as deer and antelope, but on a bigger scale.

if by chance you ever get a permit or license for hunting deer, elk or antelope in montana, let me know. i can point you in the right direction for any of these where the opportunities are great. in the interest of fostering goodwill, i'll do it free of charge.

Non Resident Hunting is under attack all over. Look for BC to curtail or eliminate non Res Hunting altogether.

Aspen Hill, did the letter say that they are going to charge $75 a point, or are have they just started the public comment period?? I seem to remember reading in my local paper about having a meeting (in the near future) about discussing the cost of resident/nonresident preference points for moose, sheep, elk, etc. I don't know if they have actually done it yet, just an idea the G&F is throwing around.

What I find funny, is all the finger pointing about the wolves, grizzly bears, etc. ruining people's hunts and eating everything in sight. Just to set everyone (and the record) straight, the USFWS still has regulatory authority over these two species and essentially the state of Wyoming's hands are tied in management of these guys. Same with Idaho, same with Montana. If you all want to bitch and moan about the griz and wolves, call your local US Fish and Wildlife office! Then these states get stuck with the $$$ bill to take care of the Fed's problem, which takes money away from other more important ventures like wildlife management.

Wyoming only has hunter/angler dollars (and a little $$ from fed tax money generated from hunting/fishing/boating equipment) to fund the entire agency (with exception of a legislative appropriation to pay for fish hatchery upgrades and disease research, the first money from the legislature in 50 years) which ends up getting spent on all sorts of crap besides wildlife management.

Everything now a days is getting expensive, just a sign of the times I guess...or we need legislation to get these agencies some $$ for improving habitats and helping landowners improve wildlife habitat. I think it is time for the bird watchers, and casual wildlife observers to pay their fair share. Hunters and anglers were the ones who got us where we are today...however we can't shoulder the burden of paying for all this other stuff forever.

MG

quote:

Everything now a days is getting expensive, just a sign of the times I guess...or we need legislation to get these agencies some $$ for improving habitats and helping landowners improve wildlife habitat. I think it is time for the bird watchers, and casual wildlife observers to pay their fair share. Hunters and anglers were the ones who got us where we are today...however we can't shoulder the burden of paying for all this other stuff forever.

AMEN!

Hay kudu56, we agree on something...

quote:

Hay kudu56, we agree on something

Well hell! The odds were in our favor, as much as we have disagreed, we were bound to agree on something! Including the Old Fart Madgoat!

May I rant a second?

I'm not directing this at anyone who has posted here on this subject, I'm just stating my opinion.

<rant on>

Just a few years ago the Feds decided to release wolves into the northern rockies including Y-stone. Now some welcomed them and most living in ID, MT, and WY opposed it, but hell, we only number a couple of million people when compared to the rest of the nation.

Now wolves have multiplied pretty well ( so have grizzlies). They are eating lots and lots of red meat. (What kind of red meat is debateable). Some here on this board will argue that the wolves really are not having a great effect on game populations, maybe not. However, the number of wolves, grizzlies or what they eat is NOT the point of my rant.

What is my point is the decision to release wolves, delay the de-listing grizzlies, and continue to protect the damn Preebles jumping mouse etc., etc. was made by CONGRESS and the Fed. FWS.

Now our lonely congressmen/women from these states bitched as much as they could but their voices only could go so far.

My question is....

When was the last time you asked your folks in congress to support the western senators and representatives in our fight to overcome these issues which are having a CAUSE and EFFECT on YOUR cost of hunting in WYOMING?

Why is the WYO G&F the focal point of the objections to the cost increases?

Maybe those folks who live outside ID, MT, and WY should look in the mirror for the answer.

<rant off>

Elkslayer...DITTO

well-said, elkslayer.

We got the do gooders trying to get wolves started here in CO also just never ends. I hate to say this but the non resident doesn't care about anything but the cost of a deer or elk tag. It's not in there state so why should they care and that has been pretty well spelled out over the last few months on other post about non-resident hunting. If things don't change your not going to have elk and deer hunting in 15yrs in the western states. The wolves and CWD is going to replace the hunter. Our Gov just signed into law the new increase in resident hunting tags plus the $5 or $10 habitat stamp but gave the 65 and older free fishing license and no habitat stamp after 64 so I get something free next year.

The biggest hang up to delisting the wolf is not the U.S. Congress or the USFWS:

It is the STATE OF WYOMING.

I think the folks in Wyoming have it made it pretty clear they would prefer us "non-residents" to stay out of their business and understanably so.... so I guess we just wait for the citizens of Wyoming to come to the party.

Idaho has had their plan approved and so has Montana....

Idaho "Not another wolf thread until September....pleeeeaaaasssseeeeee....." Vandal

I don't know, but I think the Wyoming move is a response to the Taulman lawsuit.

I said long ago this was bad for hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by IdahoVandal:
The biggest hang up to delisting the wolf is not the U.S. Congress or the USFWS:

It is the STATE OF WYOMING.

I think the folks in Wyoming have it made it pretty clear they would prefer us "non-residents" to stay out of their business and understanably so.... so I guess we just wait for the citizens of Wyoming to come to the party.

Idaho has had their plan approved and so has Montana....

Idaho "Not another wolf thread until September....pleeeeaaaasssseeeeee....." Vandal

Very good!

There wouldn't be a hang up in the delisting if the USFWS wouldn't have given us this furry little present in the first place, despite all our objections.

A great majority of WY residents were not in favor of this reintroduction, but a lot of nonresidents were. They got their wolves, but now have to pay a little bit more if they want to hunt.

I would say that is an equal trade!

MG