Non-resident quota of 15% - fair or not ?

nvmuley

Active Member
Messages
449
LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-05 AT 09:51AM (MST)[p]It looks like Nevada has raised the NR quota and will allocate 15% of the tags to NR hunters this year. I feel this is very VERY fair. Considering that all Nevada big game tags are issued through the draw process and most nonresidents that apply in Nevada have over-the-counter big game hunting opportunities in their home state and residents of Nevada have NO big game over- the-counter tags available to them. We get to deer hunt maybe once every 4 years in our own state. It's all about hunting opportunity. Nevada hunters' voluntarily choose many years ago to opt for a quality hunting experience over "sell as many tags as you can hunting". That further reduced hunting opportunites for residents. Now that we have some reasonably good hunting, everyone wants a bigger piece of the pie. What do you guys think, fair or not fair? (And remember, every state has the same choice of self regulating and mandating fewer tags and hunters therefore creating a less crowed hunting field and a better chance at an older buck.)

----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
Sounds good...I'm all for states rights. I just wish Idaho had the right to get rid of the Canadian Wolf. Sorry, just makin' a point, I'm not trying to steal your post. IMHO, Nevada is being quite fair.

Greg
 
I agree with your thoughts on states rights concerning game management. The feds have lied in the past about their goals and motives and I assume past actions will speak volumes about the sincereity of their future "promises".


----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
As a nonresident it's fine but I'd rather they even left it at 10% if they'd get rid of that rediculous outfitter entitlement draw. What a scam that is. They steal way too many tags, and the system used for quota adjustments only benefits them year to year. Nobody realizes this when applying. Heck, I doubt they put one sentence about it in the NR proclamations.
 
Nevada has made quality hunting a priortiy unlike, many other states by having residents and non-residents alike sacrificing opportunities to achieve that quality. As a NR that has hunted there when I get a tag I rate their system at the top of my list, whether they issue 10 or 15% NR. Montana, Wyoming and others should take a hard look at NV. I wish the weather would cooperate though and tag numbers would start increasing.It has been tough watching tag numbers drop. One change I would make - If I were king - I would not give any preference to the outfitter-NR group. Let them draw tags from the same NR pool the rest of us are drawing from. The Outfitters can still buy their tags from the landowner pool - very few resident and non-resident do it your selfers are interested in paying the prices demanded for those tags. In other words if a certain out-of-state-outfitter (USO) wants an advantage make him or his client pay through the nose. And those landowner tag prices qualify as paying-through-the nose. That would be called poetic justice. Don't get me wrong I favor landowner tags - if landowners aren't compensated for their contributions to wildlife one way or another we all will lose. I say let the outfitter and their clients pay for "guaranteed" tags. gl7mm
 
You don't think MT and WY have "quality"?? Are you high? Just because you typically can't spot 380" bulls from your truck in these states, doesn't mean you can't have a quality hunt and find great animals!!
 
Your concerns about the two separate NR pools are being discussed, at length. Changes have been proposed by some county game boards for next year. Obviously nothing can be done this year. Those of you that have opinions, please PM me about them. I'd really like to hear your thoughts and will present the results of this informal survey at some future meeting.
thanks

----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
Spaz,
MT and WY have great hunting-I agree -but Montana has good hunting because it's game populations and land area are large relative to its resident hunting population. Non-resident hunting opportunities are carefully controlled- the residents aren't asked to sacrifice hunting opportunities. Their current long seasons and rut hunts wouldn't support a lot more pressure. Plus NRs can't participate in special drawings for Elk in MT without ponying up lots of cash for a license. I am simply saying in my opinion NV gives treats the NR similar to the resident. Nv hands out the pain to both - that is my point. Ive hunted both MT and WY and they are both oustanding. GL7MM
 
A trur 15% set aside qoota, with no special interest tags is in the range I consider fair. But what you or I think really does not matter. If NV gets away with it, I would really be pissed at AZGFD if I were an AZ resident.
 
I agree with the 15%. I will never agree to outfitters getting guaranteed tags. Whenever money gets involved with a fair system then you can say goodbye to fairness. I will never agree to people making money off of game animals. fatrooster.
 
15% sounds very reasonable. I would have no problem if Idaho raised our LE hunts to 15% for non res.
Idaho also has an "outfitter allocation" on our premium LE hunts. It was fought long and hard but at the time there were outfitters on the advisory board.Conflict of interest? Not for the outfitters. LMAO. We refer to that as welfare ;-)


foxtrot4elk
 
Currently, you can spend less than $700 and have roughly 35-45%odds of drawing a deer AND elk licence in MT. Hook up with an outfitter and you have 100% draw odds. I've lived here all my life (25 years of hunting) and have yet to get a special permit for elk. You think MT should manage game like NV?? Thanks but no thanks.
 
I am an Idaho resident with 5 points in Nevada. 15% sounds fair to me. Hope the courts agree as our opinions here are basically meaningless. I don't really agree with the guaranteed outfitter tags. I understand why they are in place but it seems that it has turned into a way for certain people, who are willing to pay for a guide, to hunt almost every year. Seems that outfitters should remain in business because they provide a quality service at a fair price. Not because hiring them is the only way to get a tag. I wonder what would happen if NV changed the guaranteed tags to a "special tag" like WY without any obligation to hire a guide? How many people would get the tag and then DIY? How many outfitters are still in business ONLY because they have a monopoly on tags? Don't get me wrong I have nothing against outfitters, I have held a guides license in Idaho, have a friend who outfits in WY and have paid for guided hunts....but it was my choice, I could have gone DIY, just chose not to.
 
It's an excellent idea. Charge the NR more to hunt when they get the opportunity. And by the way, You can buy over the counter Big game tags. They have 1
Cougar.




-Cass
 
You got me there Cass, they are a big game animal legally, but that topic is a whole nother post. (they're a kinda big game that eats the "for real" big game.)


----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
Here is an example of this years results so far, this being with just one area through the Outfitter draw.
I picked this one to check as it is new this year since they have broke up 061-068 into a Early and Late season.

061E-068E: 16(48%)drew tags and 17(51%)did not.
061L-068L: 2(4.8%)drew tags and 39(95%)did not.

How many tags will be available during the regular draw, I don't know, anyone want to guess? That is for NR I'm talking about.

Brian
 
LAST EDITED ON Apr-01-05 AT 06:20AM (MST)[p]But Nevada odds are hard to figure due to the first available of five choices. They only show unsuccessful first choices and successful draws. I bet the outfitter put them down as late #1 and early #2. The outfitter tag limits are based upon last year's nonresident quota, that has not changed. The extra 5% this year will all go to the regular draw. So regulat rifle draw odds are almost double last year, if quotas stay about the same. You could find this years early/late tag split from the total tag numbers for the early/late split.
 
I am an outfitter, and we are not "guaranteed" tags just better odds, like 5-1 some ppl still dont draw through outfitters, we drew 7 out of 17 and one outfitter here didnt draw any out of 12, so that is not GUARANTEED, my $.02
 
GH,
Don't know what state you outfit in but what you said is true in Idaho also. A little known secret here is that many times the outfitter permits are not always applied for. They then end up in the leftover pile and can be aquired after the fact and you won't be required to use a guide if you recieve one in the later drawing for unused permits.

I obtained an elk tag here in this fashion while I was a non res in 94. All Idahos elk tags had been sold out for months. I was the only applicant.


foxtrot4elk
 
You've got to love NV's game management policies for quality hunting.

No, 15% is not fair. I think it should be a higher percentage--proportional to the percentage of non-residents in the applicant pool.

I do think states should give an advantage to residents who are doing something for wildlife--maybe extra points for wildlife habitat improvement projects, etc.

NV's tag allocation system leaves a bit to be desired. Guided tag quotas are the last to go....a few years ago when there was the big winter kill in the NE part of the state, who took the biggest percentage hit in tags? unguided non-residents....the outfitters got most of the NR tags. Unguided non-residents got well below 10% of the tags.
 
"Proportional to the percentage of non-residents in the appliacnt pool". That suggests you believe residents should have no advantage to hunt the state they live in. In other words, you are in agreement with USO's lawsuit. I really believe that 15% is fair in NV where tag opportunities are meager for residents and non-residents. At 15%, a non-resident on average would draw a descent deer tag every 5 years, and a resident every 3 years or so. I too believe the guide draw is unfair and discrimnatory, especially in NV and New Mexico. But I also think its time for sportsman to take a break for a few years from suing state wildlife agencies.
 
wmidbrook
Just a little tidbit of info to mullover. If it wasn't for NV "res" introducing elk in NV we wouldn't be having this conversation. If it wasn't for NV "res" fighting for their almost desicrated deer herds in the 80's we wouldn't be having this conversation. Why should USO, the supreme court or anyone else but NV decide who, what, when or how NV gets hunted for its game animals.

The above is good enough reason for me to think the states should decide what is fair and best for their herds. NV is not the only state that has made drastic measures and taken the initiative to manage their herds to give their residents the opportunity to harvest quality animals. 15% is more than fair for non-res tags. If that isn't good enough for you get of your a$$es out there and make a difference in your own states wildlife programs and we all would be happy and not fighting.

I'm not saying stop non-res hunting all together but I am advocating states choice whatever they decide is just.

If any of you non-res want to move here and pick s--t with the chickens like the rest of us to make a living here, you can find a moving company in the yellow pages.

CH
 
As nvdn4huntn said above and as I said in my first post: it was Nevada resident hunters that demanded the higher buck to doe ratios hence the better hunting for older bucks, not the NDOW itself. The NDOW policies are mandated by the wildlife commissioners which take input and listen to the majority of the hunters who provide input through county gameboards. The truth is NDOW has always kinda pushed for more tags, ie more money for their budget. This has been even more so since deer herds have plumeted to have the size they were in 1988 and moneys have been proportionitly reduced as deer tag numbers have fallen. So in reality it has been the Nevada hunters who have pushed for and sacrificed via reduced hunting opportunity to have a better quality hunting experience when they do get a tag. I personally do not beleive there is any way the draw should be even steven as far as odds for a tag go. I think Oregon's 5% (including guide tags!)is extremely unfair to NR. Perhaps a reciprocacity agreement is in order? Your states residents can have as many tags in our state what you give our NR in your state? The western states have agreements for wildlife and poaching violations, get caught in one state and loose your hunting rights in all the other western states in the compact. It's time to be fair and the only way to get this done is for the RESIDENTS in each state to push for fairness.


----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
I think that each state should pick a percentage they feel is fair and then give a fair drawing to those that apply. Nevada 10%-15% is fine with me. Just give me a an equal shot at those tags. Dump the guide tag draw that is not an equal shot at the tag. I do not need a guide to hunt the area I want to hunt. If the guide draw is such a good thing then why don't the residents pony up the same percentage of tags to it for residents. That would never fly. Residents will claim I don't need a guide. Well a lot of non residents don't either. States have the right to set the quotas as they see fit. We could avoid most of this mess by just being fair. It would not be that hard. Set a percentage. Then have a fair drawing. Give out the tags. Everyone that complains Res or Non-res TOUGH. The guide draw needs to go. Let every non-res play in the same pool.

Well now I probably won't draw since I just put my name on the black list.
 
Give the residents a big draw advantage only if they are doing something for their local wildlife other than sitting on their butt and talking about it--something more than just being a resident.....a resident who is actually doing something for the wildlife.

One ides is to make it like Utah's Dedicated Sportsmen or give 'em half a dozen ways to get 2 or 3 times better draw odds.

I just think a resident who's just a resident but does nothing else for wildlife should have no advantage over a non-resident.
 
I think that 15% is more than fair. I am a NR hunter in Nevada and have put in for deer for the past 18 years. The thing that is nice about Nevada is when you do finally draw a tag its a good hunt. Unlike some state that have a deer hunter on every rock, sometimes you hunt all day in Nevada and never see another hunter.
 
I realize we are all just talking here and that is good. Everyone has a little bit different take on the issue. Somewhere in the middle is common ground we can all live with. I see where Arizona is going through legislation to raise all the $$$ caps on tags. I just can't believe $1200 for a deer tag and $3200 for an elk tag is a fair price to charge NR hunters. The trend of limiting NR apps by huge fees just doesn't set right, it doesn't seem fair. Oh I know, "who said life is fair" the phrase "what the market place will bear",,I understand that hunting is now big big business and I know what governors tags go for. (Our Nv elk tag just sold for $70,000 and our desert bighorn tag sold for $110,000) I know the moneys go toward the animals and that is good. But that's a "game" not many hunters can play in. I don't believe it's good for our public image and for recruiting new hunters into our ranks,,(that's why we provide youth tags) or for even for keeping existing hunters. At some point it just gets too expensive for the average hunter to justify. And that's sad, it's fun to travel to different states and experience their game and see new country.

----------------------------------------
Measure wealth by the things you have,, for which you would not take money.
 
WMIDBROOK

>I just think a resident who's
>just a resident but does
>nothing else for wildlife should
>have no advantage over a
>non-resident.
Who chooses to live in the state you hunt & suffer the economic hardships to be a resident? Not you.

Who pays resident taxes(food gas etc.) in the state you hunt? Not you.
Who spends their money in the state you hunt year round? Not you.
Who goes to the meetings to support better hunting in the state you hunt? Do you?
Only someone who has crappy hunting in their state,like you do,would even dare to say you should have an exact same chance at drawing a tag as a resident.
ANYBODY hunting Nevada as a non res should be tickled at 15%
Don't like it, well there's lots of other western states that only give out UP TO 10% of LE tags.


I made A LOT more $ doing what I do on the coast but I spent all my spare time coming back to Idaho to pursue my hunting. So after 4 years I said screw it. Moved back,enjoy fantastic hunting as a res. My A tag is good for Sept Bow,Oct 6 day rifle, Nov muzzleloader & Dec bow again.

You are more than welcome to give up your Cal.lifestyle,move east a state or two and enjoy being a resident of a state with quality hunting.
PROBLEM SOLVED

foxtrot4elk
 
I am a non-resident and I think that 15% is very fair. They manage wildlife the correct way. If Utah would delete the general deer hunt and limit numbers sold I think it could help solve the problems hunters have of having over crowding and it could be a very enjoyable hunt without all the people. I would be for hunting every three years to have less people and a chance at harvesting a decent buck.Prices would have to go up to recover the money the dwr would lose not being able to sale as many tags but maybe they should do like Nevada and Arizona make you buy the license up front if you want a bonus point weather you draw or dont. I have 4 points for Nevada for deer and will wait my turn. I do not agree on outfitter tags giving better odds but I am not an outfitter if I was I would think the system could not get much better than the way it is now in Nevada. I hope to pull a 114-115 tag in near future for muzzlelaoder what do you residents think of this hunt good,fair or not worth putting in.
Good luck to all applicants this year trying to draw a great tag for Nevada.
 
114-115 muzz is a great hunt especially if you like backpack hunts into wilderness. The best hunt there is the late hunt when the bucks come out of the park.
 
Warbirdum-

Great idea...the "buck every third year" approach. I'm sure it's been considered by agencies but tossed out due to the $$ issue.

Even better...how 'bout you get a buck tag if you've harvested a doe (legally) for 2 straight years? This seems a great approach in areas that need doe hunts. Could even spread the expensive buck tag $$ out over the years by charging $50 or $100 for the doe tag. Most hunters would gladly pay for this given the fact that they would get a good buck tag (in their own state) every 3rd year or so...
 
GONHUNTIN
Thanks, what you described sounded very similar to Idaho so I was just curious.
 
I am a born and raised Nevadan. here is my opinion: lets take the "special advantage" these outfitters get away and put them in the nr draw at 5% instead of 15% with all the other nr's. Then lets jack up outfitter tags so that the fortunate few can only afford them. Then raise the resident tags to make up for the loss. Now then us resident gets more opportunities to hunt big game in our "OWN STATE". Last deer tag I drew was in 1999, I have not drawn antelope,elk or antlerless elk either. My wife drew antelope on her first draw, get that! Points mean what???
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom