are you sure that the special licenses come from the total non-residents license allocations? if so, that is a bummer!

For anybody that doesn't know what Jshutah is referring to, you can look at the G&F's guidline here.

I don't agree with the program; however it is important to keep facts straight.

First its not 40% of all species instead it is the following break down for the higher pay draw.
--------------------------------------------
40% of NR Elk
30% of NR Antelope
20% of NR Deer

The price to get into the special draw is $200 extra for elk and $100 deer/antelope, not a doubling (top end elk tag at $610 for '03 w/ a fishing license).

Now here is the real kicker. Paying the extra does not guarantee better draw odds. The G&F even admits to such in the brochure, by stating "special" applicants should not assume that paying extra guarantees better odds than not paying extra.

The reason behind this is straight forward. Out of a given NR elk applicant pool, if more than 40% of them pay extra, then the higher pay draw has worse odds than the regular pay and you would actually be better off going the regular route. Of course you have to pay the G&F to get their "demand index" which tells you what the historical success rate has been for each draw type. My guess is that the "special" draw was actually doing worse in the high demand elk NR license draw and thus they had to bump it up to 40% in order for high pays to see any benefit at all. Again just a guess though....

The net result? A segment of the NR applicant pool pays extra for what is most likely a marginal increase in odds if any at all (or worse). If anybody has a copy of the demand index, I'd like to see it, but I'm not going to pay for it. :smile:

Bitmasher is reading an old proclamation. I have the new one. They raised the percentage of specials licenses this year to 40% across the board (antelope, elk and deer) this can be found on page 11 of the 2004 Nonresident application book.

Here are the Special prices. Elk = $892.00, Deer = $472.00 and Antelope = $437.00

The demand index can be found at http://gf.state.wy.us/ then click on the hunting tab and scroll down to the Demand Index Drawing Odds area.

Just a few more notes on this.

For the areas and species I hunt in Wyoming using last years (2003) drawing odds:

Antelope Special = 20.5% odds
Antelope General = 11.3% odds
(30% of the total tags available and will go to 40% in 2004).

Deer Special = 24.6% odds
Deer General = 32.1 % odds
(20% of the total tags available and will go to 40% in 2004).

Elk Special = 50.1% odds
Elk General = 32.1% odds
(40% of the total tags available and will stay the same).

You can do the math and see what the 2004 changes will do to the odds. Over the years I have watched hunting slowly evolve into a wealthy mans sport. Areas that I could once hunt are now leased or bought by high priced hunting clubs. Now the states are catering to those with the bucks by allowing better odds if you can afford it.

Myself and others like me pay for the bulk of the wildlife programs but little by little, we are losing ground. When and where does it stop? Maybe in a few years when they raise the quota to 60%? Or maybe next year when you return to your hunting spot only to find those big orange "Keep Out" signs from the hunting clubs.

Our privledge to hunt should not be based on our financial status! This is why fewer Moms and Dads are teaching their kids about hunting, and this my friends is why our group is shrinking.

Fish and Game agencies should find ways to promote hunting and conservation to all (rich and poor) on an equal basis. For every year that Moms and Dads cannot afford to teach their kids about hunting we lose another large group of future hunters to help protect, and carry on our heritage.

Happy Huntin

Thanks for pointing me to the demand index info, Jshutah, just what I needed to do some calculations. Yes I was working off the 2003 info, doesn't appear to be 2004 info on-line yet.

Now, again, I don't like this WY program for NR's and I think it should go back to a single price for all NR's. However the lost revenue will need to replaced somewhere, so that means the price goes up for all. And as you'll see below, these high payers are getting little to nothing for their extra spending, so one could say they are artifically keeping the price low for "regular" hunters.

Nothing against you, but I still disagree with the statement "40% of Wyoming's Non Resident Tags To The Rich". A more accurate statement would be:

Special Draw WY NR's Pay More And Get Little Benefit. Some suckers even do worse!

I took the numbers you pointed me to, loaded them into a spread sheet and did a bunch of calculations, comparing hunt-per-hunt how the elk special NR draw compared to the regular.

The results:

182 hunt types for regular, 181 for special draw.

13 (7% of total) special hunts had worse odds than the regular.

83 (45% of total) special hunts had no difference or worse draw odds.

134 (about 75% of the total) had draw odd improvements of less than or equal to 15%.

Just 10% of all hunts (18) available saw a draw improvement greater than or equal to 50%.

There are some hunts that did very well for the "special" draw, like hunter area 55 type 9 (80% improvement) and some that did terrible, like hunter area 31 type 2 (-40% bet those folks felt silly).

The most common (the median) result was that special draws faired, no better, worse, or just 1.59% better than the regular draw. Less than 2%.

I also checked out whether the special draw did much better in high demand hunts: meaning for purposes of this analysis more than 231 (95th percentile of all hunters first choice) regular hunters put in for it. The result was that at best (hunt area 79 type 1) you got a 14% improvement, and at worst (hunt area 16 type 1) -0.40% odds. So even in high demand hunts the special draw helped little, none, or made the situation worse.

The conclusion. The special draw helps a little for some, for most it makes no difference, and for some it made drawing a tag harder (much harder in some cases). The net result is that most of the NR WY special applicant pool pays considerably more and gets little to nothing for it.

All of this could change significantly with the rate doubling in 2004. Just have to see...

[ This Message was edited by: bitmasher on 2003-11-15 22:24 ]

What IMO needs to happen guys is if you do not contribute then you don’t have a say.
Right now here in Idaho hunting and fishing license are what keep our game F&G in operation" if you wish to call it that "
Yet every year special interest groups push laws past effecting large tracks of land use, yet pay no support to our wildlife what so every. In a since once they get what they want they leave the rest of us to pay for it.
This is the same with theses large hunting clubs, as well as large tracks of private held lands that are closed to hunters.
I have a major problem with paying these people for wildlife damage when by their very being they are refusing to control the wildlife population in their areas.
They don’t mind paying more heck they are already willing to pay 4 or 5 X the resident price with out having to deal with the effects
There should be a tax put on all recreational out door gear that goes strait to state F&G, if you have a valid hunting or fishing license then you exempt from that tax

I have a major problem with paying these people for wildlife damage when by their very being they are refusing to control the wildlife population in their areas.

Are you saying that in Idaho if I own a large plot of land that the state has to pay me for elk/deer damage to it from overcrazing or crop damage?

If this is so, I think the solution would be to remove the subsidy.

Subsidizing landowners for damage to their crops and/or fences is a positive practice in my opinion if the landowner allows some PUBLIC hunting on their property. In this situation the landowner at least made an attempt to control populations using the people that pay the bills (everyday hunters).

In the case of private hunting clubs, they purchase or lease the land, allow only a few wealthy hunters to hunt the land and exclude the general hunters. Then when it comes time to repair their fences or other damages caused by wildlife, they dip into the pockets of the people they refused access to (hunters).

Maybe the rule should state that if you allow public hunting on your property the fish and game dept will help cover wildlife damage costs. If you refuse, the costs belong to the landowner.

Hunting clubs hate us during the season, but they love us when they need our money to assist them in growing huge bulls and bucks for their clients (The same clients that now own 40% of the non-resident tags in Wyoming).

Does anyone have a guess on how many hunters fall into the less than upper class financial category? If I had to guess it would be the vast majority. Yet we are the hunters that are little by little, losing the premium land and tags.

We have to be the nicest goup of people in America because we pay almost all of the bills only to receive a little less each year,and hardly any of us complain.

Happy Huntin

Ya bitmasher
That’s what im saying.
Lets say you own a 2000 or 200 for that mater-acre ranch here in Idaho and have it posted no hunting. Then lets say when the snow falls a herd of elk move in and start dining on you hay stacks.
Well guess who reimburses you for that damage??? You guessed it the very hunters that you have kept off your land.
I agree100% if you post your land NO HUNTING! then that should mean everyone even you and in no way should you qualify for 1 dime of money supported by hunters or their subsidizers

Interesting, I thought the money came from the Ag department.

I'm against the government paying out for wildlife damage in the first place anyway. The government doesn't pay you when you live in tornado alley and you unfortunately get hit by a tornado. Same thing goes for hail storms. So why should the government be the "insurance agent" for wildlife damage? Not saying that wildlife damage shouldn't be paid, but the public should get something in return for its generosity. Perhaps allowing hunting is a good way to show generosity. Good idea.

However I support livestock damage relief by predators, the reason being simply that ranchers can no longer trap predators themselves (at least here in CO). This is enforced by a public vote against leg holding traps, therefore the public has to pay those that suffer financial burden from the publics' choice.

The closing of doors on private land that was previously open to all hunters at no charge is a trend that I'm sad to say is hear to stay (imo). A lot of talk is given to selling out to the money blah, blah, blah and how the country is becoming a bunch of little fiefdoms. This is partially true, but not the whole story.

However most ranchers I know that won't let you on their property its not because of money, but because they have been burned over and over again by slob hunters. The jerks that cut fences, the jerks that leave messes and don't clean up, the jerks that make roads with their trucks and atv's wherever/whenever they feel like it and then when you tell them to leave they claim they have a right to be on the rancher's property doing whatever the hell they please. Have it happen year after year and I start to sympathize with the ranchers.

Sometimes I think western hunters are kind of pampered (myself included). Out here you get a lot of folks that think it is a right to hunt cheaply on scads of public land. To our brothers and sisters in the south and east this is just silly jabbering. In their neck of the woods it is expected that your going to have to pay for a lease or becomes friends with someone who has access to private land. Public land is in the minority if available at all.

The politics and availability of hunting has changed dramatically in the last 50 years. What are the answers? I don't know, but it is nice to read other people are thinking about it and kick around thoughts.