schoolhousegrizz
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,579
I am a Utah resident. I would be all for 20% of tags to go to NR. It would hurt resident odds a little but drastically increase non-resident odds.
In utah there are 2 words that you need to say to yourself, over snd over until they sink in. Before you start the res/nonres game. POINT CREEP
Only if you hunt other states. I would dare to bet it is only about 10% of Utah hunters hunt out of state.Stonefly. The Point creep is out of hand anyways. A few more tags to the non-residents will be well worth it if all the other states gave us 10% more of their tags
Stonefly perfectly said!Tell my grandkids that
NVBighorn I see what you are saying but I think with the tough draw odds and the waiting periods after drawing, you probably aren't going to be hunting top units in Nevada a lot no matter if it's 90/10 or 80/20.
I believe that If you apply in a bunch of states like I do, your overall number of drawn tags in a lifetime would probably improve if all states including Nevada went to 80/20.
I understand some only hunt their home state or just want to maximize their home state odds. Personally I would love to go from less than 10% nonresidents for sheep, goat and moose in my home state to 20%. I think nonresidents deserve a more reasonable slice of the pie.
Interesting concept. I would love that in the county I live in!!85/15
But of the 85%, split those into 75% of that allocation going to residents that reside in the counties where tags are good for, and 25% of that allocation going to residents that reside in other counties within the state...
Trophy species with less than 1000 tags available statewide, 100% to residents, once in a lifetime rule if drawn
NR should always pay for more than they are getting. If they don't like it they should stay home and hunt their own state, This **** is getting old.
Hell just flip the cost of NR pay to the resident side($$$$$$) look how much the Dept of fish and game could waste then.
How about nr get to hunt only what is available in their home state, much like Wyoming's fur bearer regs ?
Just a thought.
Non-Residents are free to recreate and enjoy all the federal lands, however, it has been proven in court that each state owns in trust the animals that live within their state boundaries.
Who remembers about 15 years ago when George Taulman and USO outfitters from NM tried to sue AZ and a few other states for the rights to more non-resident tags? He lost. Long story short, The states own the animals even when they live on federal land.
I'm only the messenger. If you don't like the courts decision hire a lawyer and sue. Complaining on here will get you nowhere.
Corrado will need that money to pay for your wolves, that are going to be released,I voted no because of the price difference. Raise resident prices and lower ours by half and you can have the 80%/20%
Funny thing is, at least in Colorado, it is the big price difference that keeps them from reducing our numbers to 20%. They have already spent all the money we pay them and they don’t think they could make it financially if they cut our numbers more. You can’t have it both ways. ?
I think Texas, ,needs about a thousand wolvesMy wolves?? Where you getting that? None In Texas so far, and I am contributing to the stop the wolf org. You?
Ah, but there are a few in Texas already.My wolves?? Where you getting that? None In Texas so far, and I am contributing to the stop the wolf org. You?
In 30 or 40 years or so, I will care a lot less about this argument. One can only imagine how much we will all hate on each other then - If public hunting even makes it that far. Once it inevitably becomes residents only, it will only be a matter of time before national anti-hunting interests organize to ban hunting on federal lands. The closer one flirts with 0% nonresident numbers today, the less national support each individual state's wildlife issues will get. Fact of life, not saying I agree with it. If I had to take a positions I would support making State owned land 100% state residents only. But Federal lands should be MUCH more democratic.
I agree with your fist half statements but strongly disagree with the second half. From my experience the guys who want to claim rights to the federal lands and it's resources out west are from someplace with virtually no federal lands. Again, every American is free to recreate on these lands but the animals on it are owned by each state. Might as well pack up and move out west. Hell...... everybody else is.