Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kurtr" data-source="post: 288847" data-attributes="member: 194">its pretty much dead.  This is from rokslide a guy who is involvedIn general terms, there will be NO significant loss of D, E, A tags for NR's in regard to 90-10 split.It is a fact that in Statute, NR's are assured 7,250 full price elk tags...meaning the 6% decrease in LQ tags to NR's would be made up for with more general tags. So, that's a wash. The same with LQ cow/calf tags, what residents don't draw right now, are headed to the leftover draw, so NR's wouldn't see any significant decrease there.A vast majority of the NR deer tags are region wide tags, those are 100% going to NR's. There will be a decrease in the remaining LQ deer tags to NR's, no question of that, you're losing 10% of those tags and no way to off-set unless areas are undersubscribed by Residents (those fall to the NR initial draw).Pronghorn is going to see a shift. No question the harder to draw areas would be tougher for NR's to draw, you're losing 10% of your quota. But, there will also be tags available in mid-tier units where Residents wont now draw tags due to the 10% increase in Resident tags being drawn in different unit. Currently, NR's draw more than 50% of the pronghorn tags in Wyoming, that wont change with a 90-10 split. Its going to be more of a shift in where NR tags are more available, than a loss in total NR pronghorn tags.Sheep, moose, goat, bison...you're again flat losing those tags by 10-15% depending on the species.Where this bill sucks, and why it will fail, is the 30% outfitter allocation. The 90-10 split will shift things more than reduce NR opportunity at tags. But, the 30% allocation to outfitters will be the biggest blow to NR's.So, I first heard of this bill about 3-4 months ago and talked to the guy that is pushing it. In the conversation myself and a friend had with him, we told him flat out to stick with the 90-10 split. We also told him that if he was at all serious that the bill had to be revenue neutral to the GF budget. Our recommendation was to increase Resident fees to offset any potential revenue loss going to 90-10. Further, he brought up the outfitter allocation, and we told him flat out that would likely kill his idea and the legislation. Residents are not keen on giving another hand-out to outfitters and IMO, sets a pretty dangerous precedent.That brings us to a meeting a few weeks back that a bunch of groups had with the GF. In that discussion, the WOGA brought up this bill and asked the groups in attendance to oppose it. They also said that it was likely to have an outfitter set aside (again they said they oppose that).But, all that being said, the outfitters are currently being pretty quiet and are taking some heat over it right now. For a group that said they don't support this bill, they sure haven't gone out of their way to come out opposing it yet either.If I had to venture a guess, Jeff Smith and Sy Gillaland are probably crunching numbers and seeing if there is an over-all benefit to outfitters. I would also guess that there are some outfitters that would support this big-time and some that would oppose it big-time.I'll be in full opposition mode, strictly over the fact that once again, NR's are taking it on the chin by having to pay for something that largely benefits Residents. My opinion, if Residents want a 90-10 split, than Residents should have to pay more for to make up the difference. Further, I oppose the outfitter set-aside no matter where its proposed, in any state. The draw should be open to ALL non residents and just because someone has the cash to throw around, they shouldn't get better odds by buying/applying/booking through an outfitter.This bill is going nowhere, its a budget session and needs 2/3 vote to pass. I don't see it coming out of committee and IME, even with amendments, it will die. The quickest way to see a bill fail in committee is to start making a bunch of amendments. The session is only 24 days long and they don't have the time to go back and forth with the amendments. Plus, with revenue issues in Wyoming over-all, this is not a high priority bill in a budget session.But, make no mistake that 90-10 is not going away. Wyoming Residents are feeling the pinch when they apply in surrounding states and therefor want more opportunity at tags here.There is a right way to get a 90-10 bill passed...and this isn't it.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA