Res vs Nonres heres some ideas

[rocketman]

I am a Colo res and we are currently going
through this this month regarding pref pts
and the allocation of tags res and non res.
Currently 60 res to 40 nonres is the guideline.
All of the western states are dealing with
this issue(ARIZ) and Wyoming is next on the
agenda. Heres wishful thinking. It wont happen
but what the heck. I think we all agree most
animals spend all or most of their lives on
Federal land in the west. Most hunting is on fed land.
Why not put a standard, such as 80-20 res and
nonres tag allotments for ALL west states.
Why not put a ratio of 12-1 for license fees
res and nonres. Ex $40 res and $480 non res.
For animals such as deer,elk and antelope this
would work. For sheep,goat,lion etc maybe a set
of different rules, 90-10 etc.Charge a habitat
stamp for all western states such as $10-$50
to apply for any tag in a state nonrefundable
for ALL applicants. Roy in Montrose

 

[COHunter]

Wouldn't that be nice, but our own DOW & WC would never go for it. It would disrupt the money flow if we went 80/20. If any state was cheering for USO, it would be Colorado. Also too many Nonresidents like knowing if they dont draw a decent tag in all the other western states they can always do a plan B hunt...aka Colorado OTC.

The only way I see 80/20 in CO is by a ballot petition during an election year.

 

[ELKMASTER101]

youwho,
your talking about 80 percent non, resident only 20 percent, RIGHT,
you bet ya i'm go for that.
think of all the money you locals would rake, in by having that many out of staters blowing their wad in your states.
hell I'd maybe even hire one of your girlfriends to be my camp bitc$,
your so funny HHHHEEEEHHEHEHEH.
We aren't going to start this crap again are we.
if so just wind me up and turn me loose,

 

[sneakem]

So what your saying is you would let 80% of the tags in your state to nonresidents right?? Think of all the money you'd get!

 

[ELKMASTER101]

you bet ya.
we are being over run with deer,
to the point that they are becoming a nusence,
I had 68 deer two nights ago standing out in my field.
and in a 2 mile radius counted over 200.
the thing is they all looked like does,
hum, they have droped the racks, maybe i should be out looking for antlers.
we need help but its the damn goverment that can't figure it out.
I think i was 2 years ago Iowa hired some out of state group to come in, they were to shoot 1000 = deer in about a 5 mile stretch. along interstste 80 just outside of Iowa City.
gave them the go ahead and spotlight them,and shot them with rifles.
they braged on how many they would take, and set there price, the goverment oked it.
well they only took 1/3 of what they said and still got paid in full.
now thats a bunch of crap,
you bet I'd let out of staters come in and pay a license fee, reduced in half of what it is now.
think money coming in, not going out.
more money for our DNR to help improve parks and water.
cut back on the one day city slickers/ wantobe hunters.

 

[AZBuckSnort]

I give rocketman a salute for actually offering up an idea, whether I agree with it or not, on this subject. The concept of "sameness" from one stae to another in regards to hunting on federal lands is an idea I am hearing more and more.

My own thoughts on this issue have at their foundation that the individual state must have the right to manage the game within its' borders in the best interests of that state, including the best interests of that states' residents. Some states have a better management philosophy on game management that others, take CA vs. Nevada for example in regards to mule deer management. NV has often had the highest harvest of mature bucks in relation to herd size and hunter success that any state in the west. Why? Restricted tag numbers and careful analysis of individual herd dynamics. California has some of the most spectacular habitat in the west, why is the hunting success so low? High permit numbers, no mountain lion hunting, not managed for older age classes of bucks, and the lingering effects of a decade long drought.

Perhaps a standardization of hunting fees on federal lands and a federal hunting license with a set resident/NR percentage of tag distribution will someday be the law of the land. My fear is that politicians will use hunting as the proverbial political football and the input of wildlife management professionals will take a back seat to something that could become just another revenue stream for a federal agency.

 

[meadecreek]

Using the amount of federal vs private land may not be a good protocol in determining license allocation. Here in WY, although we do have alot of public land (50% of state), the other half is private and land locks some of this fed/state land. So it is a bit deceiving, and the private will always be the limiting factor.

 

[Roadtrip]

Well written and well thought out AZ. You have a keen insight to the issues and I think you are indeed forcasting the future. Something will be done to to balance out all the issues at somepoint in time. The Game managment, Resident Interests, Fairness to Nonresidents, Federal Land Use issues, and of course the spiraling fees and $$'s attached to the sport via outfitters and business interests. The issue is so complex and emotional for so many that it will take a delicate balancing act to ever achieve that "sameness" you wrote about.

Cheers
Roadtrip

 

[Boskee]

Nice post Jim. I don't think that more federal regulation will be in anyones best interest as it offers up more opportunity for special interest groups enacting legislation. I seriously doubt Congress could ever get together as you mentioned. I agree the control needs to remain with the states because they can best administer their resources and manage more efectively.

 

[AZBuckSnort]

Amen

 

[txhunter58]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-12-05 AT 05:14PM (MST)[p]As a nonresident, I could support something like this:

Open units: ones that are OTC or take 1-3 points to draw. Keep the 60:40% split. Heck, keep the OTC units OTC for residents and make nonresidents draw to levels not to excede 40% of the tags normally issued.

Quality units: ones that take 4-6 points to draw. Go to 70:30% residents/nonresidents.

Trophy units: ones that require 6+ points to draw. Go to 80/20%

If they simply made the change to make all nonresidents draw for all elk tags, that would help in the preference point issues of resident vs nonresident to some extent. Residents could still buy an OTC tag while collecting points, and nonresidnets would have to burn their points or get lucky on a second choice.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[Boskee]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-12-05 AT 07:43PM (MST)[p]txhunter58, What you are proposing in Az would just about guarantee that a resident will be drawing a tag for one specie about every 5-8 years. We only have OTC tags on archery deer hunts everything else is by draw only even javalina. I don't think that could possibly work here but if we capped the tags at 15% NR in a separate pool that could be workable and any undersubscribed hunts by NR automatically go to the residents and that will be mainly cow elk tags. There also needs to be a trophy standard set in that if you shoot an animal of trophy quality as a nonresident you can't reapply again for that specie for 7-10 years. That way the remaining nonresidents would have a better chance at a tag. I know this seems harsh but there's no way increasing the applicants in the draw process is going to work on in over subscribed system. There are 10 people in my extended family that hunt. In the last 6 years there has been a total of 16 deer tags, 7 elk tags 4 of which were cow, 3 antelope tags and 0 sheep tags. No one has missed a single drawing. None of these individuals put in for what would be considered a trophy hunt on the new agenda. To say things are tough in the draw might be an understatement. Two of these people have not recieved a single tag in the last 6 years. I do think you are on to something with a NR allotment and I'm only giving you these figures to demonstrate how tough it is to really draw a tag out here.

 

[ddy58]

Its bad enough having state legislatures being in charge of hunting practices in a state but let a bunch of pencil pushing congressman in washington decide for you and youll really have problems.

Personally I dont see how the same percentages across the board for all states would work. For example Nv has so few tags it wouldnt be fair at all to give nonresidents 40% of them with so many residents missing out. But places like colorado can afford to give nonresidents more tags with there management practices.

Eventually though there are going to be so many hunters and so few tags that wed all better appreciate what we have now.

 

[Boskee]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-13-05 AT 06:11AM (MST)[p]DDY, you make a some valid points. I never realized how bad the draw odds were in my own family until we discussed it a couple of weeks ago.You guys in Nv have it worse than we do. This drought cycle has impacted us in a much larger fashion than most of us realize. The odds to get drawn are getting worse and this is with a decline in hunting participants in general across the board. This is like an aircraft that is spinning out of control. God only knows where it will end but one things clear in this mess, USO and their supporters are only concerned with one thing and that's THEIR right to hunt, not yours, or mine or some other guys and they'll do anything to make that happen! They don't have a care in the world who's right to hunt they compromise to get their opportunity because in their minds most of us really don't deserve the opportunity to hunt because we are the other guy!

 

[txhunter58]

I should have clarified that my thoughts were for Colorado only. The figures only work with a state that have really big numbers of animals/tags. States with much more limited numbers of tags couldn't afford to use the 60:40% rule (unless they are forced to by the courts), they should go staight to at least the 80:20%

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)