Nevada Game Commision's Policy 24???

D

Duckdude

Guest
LAST EDITED ON Apr-16-05 AT 10:11PM (MST)[p]Has anyone looked at the new Policy 24 that the Nevada State Fish and Game Commission just came out with. It's supposed to explain how they're going to divide up tags between residents and non-residents. I've read it front to back and even tried applying it to some hunts (just guessing at the numbers of residents that hunt out of state). The truth is....I can't make heads or tails of this. Whether you're for or against resident preferences, I would be embarassed to call this thing the solution. It just seems like alot of smoke and mirrors.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if it holds up.
 
I don't think it's smoke and mirrors. I think it is an honest effort to establish some logic to the distribution of tags. It's a lot better than just picking an arbitrary percentage for nonresidents or just putting everyone in the same pot. Neither of those options serve anyone's interest very well or fairly. It's a helluva lot better than just trying to thumb their nose at Taulman like Arizona did.

Just my opinion.
 
It will be interesting to see what kind of magic is used to "determine non-resident opportunity to hunt ungulate big game in the home states of the non-resident", as called for in Nevada Policy 24.

My guess is that there will be more art than science in this process and that, in most cases, an analysis will be developed to set non-resident targets to whatever minimum is provided for, which for Policy 24 is 10%.

How will non-resident opportunity be determined? As a non-resident, will I be assumed to have an opportunity to hunt that ungulate big game in my home state that lives on private land, and is available to hunt only for a large trespass fee, or in many cases is unavailable to hunt at any price. What about ungulate big game that lives on Indian Reservations, or in National Parks... will they be included in my opportunity?

My problem with this solution is that it is based on the premise that a newly arrived resident of Las Vegas should have some superior right to hunt on federal, public lands in Nevada, simply because he now rests his hat in Nevada. And that this right is superior to that of a native and lifelong Nevada resident who has recently, for job purposes of whatever, relocated to Pensacola. In my book, federal land is federal land, and any allocation that grants some people superior access to that land for an oversubscribed, and thus allocated, public recreational opportunity, such as hunting ungulate big game, is simply discrimination, pure and simple.

Not trying to start an argument... just have an opinion.

HornedToad
 
Toad,

Your points are well taken and well presented. No argument but I have some opinions of my own.

You said:
>It will be interesting to see
>what kind of magic is
>used to "determine non-resident opportunity
>to hunt ungulate big game
>in the home states of
>the non-resident", as called for
>in Nevada Policy 24.
>
>My guess is that there will
>be more art than science
>in this process and that,
>in most cases, an analysis
>will be developed to set
>non-resident targets to whatever minimum
>is provided for, which for
>Policy 24 is 10%.

From a conversation I had recently with an official "in the know", the percentage of nonresdient tags in Nevada for this year is likely to come in around 14-15% nonresidents. Keep in mind the 10% minimum was a bone offered up by NV because they recognize the desire to hunt here. If the formula they are using were applied in it's strictest manner there could easily have been LESS than 10%, maybe no opportunity for some species. They established 10% in an attempt to keep it reasonable.

>
>How will non-resident opportunity be determined?
>As a non-resident, will I
>be assumed to have an
>opportunity to hunt that ungulate
>big game in my home
>state that lives on private
>land, and is available to
>hunt only for a large
>trespass fee, or in many
>cases is unavailable to hunt
>at any price. What about
>ungulate big game that lives
>on Indian Reservations, or in
>National Parks... will they be
>included in my opportunity?

Can you go down and buy an over the counter tag to hunt an ungulate animal in the state where you live? If so then you are at an advantage in your state over someone who lives in Nevada. The reservations, parks etc are not supporting animals for which you could go down and buy over the counter tags for so they should not be in the formula. Keep in mind Nevada may have huge areas of "public" and "federal" lands but we too have vast expanses of land we cannot hunt for the same reasons. Are you familiar with the Nevada Test Site and Nellis Gunnery Range?

>
>My problem with this solution is
>that it is based on
>the premise that a newly
>arrived resident of Las Vegas
>should have some superior right
>to hunt on federal, public
>lands in Nevada, simply because
>he now rests his hat
>in Nevada. And that this
>right is superior to that
>of a native and lifelong
>Nevada resident who has recently,
>for job purposes of whatever,
>relocated to Pensacola.

Residency and it's length requirement is another sensitive issue. I have lived here 48 years. Should I have no preference over someone who just moved here? As for the guy who moves to another state, unless he did so because he was forced to then he made a conscious choice and in doing so gives up his claim to Nevada residency benefits. My opinion. And I am a guy who may move to another state someday. I realize I will give up my priviledges in Nevada.


>In my
>book, federal land is federal
>land, and any allocation that
>grants some people superior access
>to that land for an
>oversubscribed, and thus allocated, public
>recreational opportunity, such as hunting
>ungulate big game, is simply
>discrimination, pure and simple.

So, are you saying that a person from another country should also be extended the same rights and priviledges as a person who lives in another state? Right now there is no distinction between a nonresident alien and a nonresident US citizen. There would have to be under what you are saying.


Here is a solution that was presented to me yesterday. Open Nevada tags up to everyone with no restrictions on residency. Make deer season be a 4 or 5 day season where you end up with a miniscule success rate and where the hunting quality sucks much like it does in many other states. Run all seasons at the same time so guides cannot leverage the seasons with their clients and hunt from August through December for different species and different hunts. In a short time the quality here would suck like it does in many other states and people would not want to come hunt here. Problem solved.

We, as Nevada hunters, made sacrifices back in the 1970s to get the quality of our deer herds back. We chose to go to a drawing rather than to just shorten the seasons and lower success rate and quality. We started several organizations that have enhanced bighorn sheep populations that rival any in the last 100 years. There have been many good people put out of the ranching business to support the ever expanding elk herds in Nevada. And even then we have chosen to maintain quality big bull, nig ram and big buck hunts so everyone can get a trophy. I didn't see very many of these nonresidents making those sacrifices with me. Most were, and still are, buying over the counter tags in their home state, hunting every year and only recently realized what a great hunting state Nevada has become.

Now that the little red hen in Nevada has planted and grown her wheat, harvested and ground it into flour, and baked into bread, suddenly a load of nonresidents and all the guides want to have a sandwich on her. Well I say that just ain't fair.

My opinions.
 
i agree with nvbighorn. i apply allover the west and live in idaho. i think that quotas are needed even though they cut me out of the drawings. i think what uso outfitters did was borderline criminal.
just my opinon not that anyone cares.
 
Well said NVBighorn!

I guess I still don't get the whole USO thing. Don't most of their clients have the money to just buy landowner tags and private hunts?

Ed
 
Excellent post NVBighorn. I beleive the Commission worked hard to come up with Policy 24, not that Policy 20 was all that bad.

But because of the George Taulmans/USO and the John J Jacksons/Conservation Forces of this world they were forced to come up with this new policy.

I wonder if Taulman will show to the next commission meeting ?
 

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